Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!hookup!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.uoregon.edu!kaiwan.kaiwan.com!pell.pell.chi.il.us!pell.pell.chi.il.us!there.is.no.cabal
From: orc@pell.chi.il.us (Orc)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 15 Dec 1995 13:47:58 -0800
Organization: The Deacon Brodie Fan Club
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <4asqee$hhp@pell.pell.chi.il.us>
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <MICHAELV.95Dec3151810@mindbender.headcandy.com> <4anf6d$8d@pell.pell.chi.il.us> <MICHAELV.95Dec14230340@mindbender.headcandy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pell.pell.chi.il.us
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30421 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10513
In article <MICHAELV.95Dec14230340@mindbender.headcandy.com>,
Michael L. VanLoon <michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> wrote:
>In article <4anf6d$8d@pell.pell.chi.il.us> orc@pell.chi.il.us (Orc) writes:
>
> In article <MICHAELV.95Dec3151810@mindbender.headcandy.com>,
> Michael L. VanLoon <michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> wrote:
>
> > >At some point, you have to decide whether or not you want to make an OS
> > >run on your hardware or select hardware to run an OS :)
>
> > You're part of a minority. A lot of people just want a good
> > operating system to play with, but already have a machine to put it
> > on; spending the money to upgrade the machine to a configuration
> > suitable to Linux or xBSD may be enough to make the user throw in
> > the towel and stick with Windows or OS/2, which are both capable
> > of running on quite a bit of the funky hardware out there.
>
> >I have two things to say: Windows 95; Windows NT.
>
> And your point is?
>
>My point is that a lot of people who own that funky hardware out there
>who never even heard of Linux or BSD are still finding themselves in
>the uncomfortable position of upgrading to more competent components.
>
>It's hardly accurate to say BSD is bad because it demands better
>hardware than Linux.
I am *not* saying that BSD is "bad because it demands better
hardware than Linux", even defining bad as 'not supported yet.'
What I am saying is the attitude that you need to change your
hardware to support the operating system is kinda dumb,
particularly when there are other operating systems out there that
are equally as competent as yours that _will_ run on that hardware.
If you don't run on most of the Windows machines floating around,
when someone goes shopping for a free Unix, they'll look at xBSD,
find it doesn't support component X, then look at Linux, which
_does_, and run it. "But the networking Is Better!" you will cry.
"Not on my machine." will be the reply from the former windows
user, and they will be completely right, because the polished
jewel that is the 4.4 networking scheme will be about as useful
to them as the UCSD II.0 Ada compiler I've got sitting on a 8"
floppy disk at home is to me.
If I go out and spend $2000 on hardware, I like to keep the old
hardware in use without carrying around my own patch tree to make
it work with my operating system. When I hear well-connected members
of the xBSD community chirp about having to replace commonly
available hardware before I can use their paragon of an operating
system, I envision having to apply patches for the rest of my life
just to get the functionality that I've seen make available for all
the other operating systems I would want to run on my farm of x86
machines (all of which contain parts from the original 486/25
I purchased about 5 years ago.) Since there are other operating
systems out there that _do_ run on these machines, why should I
abandon them for an xBSD environment?
____
david parsons \bi/ orc@pell.chi.il.us
\/