Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!quack!quack.kfu.com!nsayer From: nsayer@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer) Subject: Re: *** Is FreeBSD easy to install ??? *** Message-ID: <nAqyspX@quack.kfu.com> Sender: news@quack.kfu.com (0000-News(0000)) Organization: The Duck Pond public unix, +1 408 249 9630, log in as guest. References: <3248ab21.5993197@news.inetnow.net> <52bss1$2gg@orion.cybercom.net> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 01:05:20 UTC Lines: 26 ksmm@cybercom.net (The Classiest Man Alive) writes: >I think FreeBSD is the most difficult OS installation I've ever done. It depends on what you mean by 'installation', really. I can directly compare Solaris 2.x x86 and FreeBSD 2.2 (SNAPs) directly since I've installed both on all the same set of machines. If you mean "zero-to-login:", I think the FreeBSD 2.x install is pretty painless, considering all of the nonsense you have to do vis-a-vis disk partitioning and all that to get Unix to run on the x86 platform. Solaris 2.x certainly isn't any easier in this regard. The boot -c stuff in FreeBSD makes working around balky hardware during the install _far_ easier than Solaris 2.x, I can assure you of that. As far as mangling things after you've done the base installation... well, that is where the branches really start to diverge. All in all, I still prefer FreeBSD to Solaris 2.x, but that may be for the reasons that make you hate it. There's no knowing with any pair of individuals. -- Nick Sayer <nsayer@quack.kfu.com> | They said: "Vote for Bush and the N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NORCAL.CA.USA.NOAM | deficit will go up." They were +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest' | right. I did vote for Bush and sure URL: http://www.kfu.com/~nsayer/ | enough, the deficit is going up.