Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.math.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!ivory.lm.com!not-for-mail From: peterb@telerama.lm.com (Peter Berger) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux vs .... Date: 18 Sep 1995 15:36:15 -0400 Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh. Lines: 16 Message-ID: <43khnf$8ol@ivory.lm.com> References: <41epe5$onh@mailnews.kub.nl> <43cnds$c5p@ivory.lm.com> <43edkj$li6@agate.berkeley.edu> <MICHAELV.95Sep17011101@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ivory.lm.com Exactly. I enjoy my position here as unofficial flamelord. Since I am not affiliated with either the free or netbsd teams, I feel free to speak out against bullshit when I see it. Look, folks, the fact of the matter is that the INSTANT anyone starts talking about one OS or another being "more stable", "more featureful" or whatever without giving specific examples, they are full of crap. When I see statements like "most releases are stable, and those that aren't are quickly repaired", I want to know what sort of weird, wacky, and stupid definition of "stable" is being used. -- "Actually, you just think that's a telephone. Really, it's the alarm that rings whenever I get out of my chair." -- E.S. Peter Berger. System Administrator, Telerama Public Access Internet http://www.lm.com/~peterb Serving Pittsburgh since 1991.