Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 22:24:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White <dwhite@riley-net170-164.uoregon.edu> To: Iwan Leonardus <riwanlky@rad.net.id> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: stable Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960604221637.9627N-100000@riley-net170-164.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <31B4F301.41C67EA6@rad.net.id>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Iwan Leonardus wrote: > I 've been heard about this -stable version, I think the -stable code is more > suitable for all 'Live' system, while the other can be accepted as other system, > especially development, and personal system. What is "the other"? > In the BSD world, I also heard this BSDI OS as commercial BSD OS, which is suppose > to be more 'stable', because all commercial product is mean to work in 'Live' system FreeBSD is as well. Commercial software is not immune to instability. It is just as likely to have bugs as much as anything else. > So, I am wandering what BSDI has that FreeBSD -stable do not have so we have to pay > more for BSDI OS. These information is usefull for planning and budgeting for a > system connected to Internet. BSDi is marketed as commerical. FreeBSD is free. It's a matter of philosophy. I believe FreeBSD is better as the support network is unparalleled. Through the various mailing lists we have access to the developers of the OS, not just a bank of customer service reps. Other than that, BSDi and FreeBSD are from the same code base (4.4BSD) so applications are very portable. Most don't even need recompiling. I also like the project itself -- how many large software systems do you know that are developed and supported over the Internet? Hope this helps. Not well written but a start. Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960604221637.9627N-100000>