Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!boulder!news.coop.net!village.org!not-for-mail From: imp@village.org (Warner Losh) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Slight flame from Linux user (mere mortals shouldn't use FreeBSD?) Date: 4 Jun 1995 16:22:42 -0600 Organization: The Village Lines: 28 Message-ID: <3qtbni$35a@rover.village.org> References: <3ql3gd$je2@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <D9K4Iz.BJM@midway.uchicago.edu> <3qo0c9$1gh@jhunix1.hcf.jhu.edu> <3qq6ad$3g4@anshar.shadow.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: rover.village.org In article <3qq6ad$3g4@anshar.shadow.net>, Don Whiteside <dwhite@anshar.shadow.net> wrote: >I still contend that the FreeBSD docs have been more than sufficient since >v1.0. Well, they have been "barely" sufficient since about 1.0. I say barely, because I was able to get it up and running. They had enough of the needed detail in them, if you happened to know a thing or two, or didn't mind using an entire disk for FreeBSD. Things have come a *LONG* way from 1.0R. I started using a 1.0-BETA system that was hand built for me, but had to junk it and install 1.0-GAMMA due to driver issues. I'm still grateful to the useful and consistant help that was given to me in this painful period of existance. The 2.0.5-ALPHA install is much nicer and, despite its quirks, is easily at the same level of the Linux install tools that I've used. That is to say: "They are both quite usable, but they both have their stupider parts." (I've sent feedback on both systems to the right places, btw). Warner -- Warner Losh "VMS Forever" home: imp@village.org Cyberspace Development, Inc work: imp@marketplace.com Makers of TIA, The Internet Adapter. http://marketplace.com/