From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Feb 28 17:43:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA03229 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:43:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from obiwan.aceonline.com.au (obiwan.aceonline.com.au [203.103.90.67]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA03224 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:43:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (adrian@localhost) by obiwan.aceonline.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA00186; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 15:46:37 +0800 (WST) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 15:46:37 +0800 (WST) From: Adrian Chadd To: Richard Lyon cc: Ronald Darden , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: installation difficulty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > In short, your installation s$%^s! > > > > By what standards are you making this judgement? Do you expect free > software to compete against an installation procedure which cost millions > of dollars to construct? FBSD is not microsoft. > Thank god it isn't microsoft *g* Personally I Like the FreeBSD configuration over the various linux config styles across distributions. The "1 disk with practically everything" philosophy is excellent, and being able to muck about with driver params on startup is even better. Linux *CAN* do this, but only using a "ramdisk" style root fs to boot up from, with which you load the required modules from, then kill it and continue booting normally. To be honest, sure it saves some memory space, but its not like getting a machine with a decent amount of RAM is very expensive these days. In short, if you don't like FreeBSD's setup, go and try something else. Adrian.