Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:18:10 +0100 From: Chris Zumbrunn <chris@czv.com> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The only worthwhile logo-related comments so far.... Message-ID: <82067eb44fc2738952eaf5bdffa5a05c@czv.com> In-Reply-To: <420EFBA2.4000106@pacific.net.sg> References: <20050213004204.GA91920@xor.obsecurity.org><20050213021055.69766.qmail@web53901.mail.yahoo.com><20050213022605.GA24426@xor.obsecurity.org> <420ED112.80401@pacific.net.sg><420EDF52.1090408@nbritton.org> <420EE518.9070605@pacific.net.sg><20050213055831.GB8532@grover.logicsquad.net><420EF423.7020609@pacific.net.sg><20050213064500.GD8532@grover.logicsquad.net> <420EFBA2.4000106@pacific.net.sg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 13, 2005, at 8:02 AM, Erich Dollansky wrote: > The point is the lack of a company supporting FreeBSD like IBM does > for Linux, is a reason for companies not to take FreeBSD as they > cannot turn back to that company if things go wrong. Solaris and MacOSX are the equivalents for this in the BSD world. I first ask my customers to decide if they want to deploy on BSD, Linux or Windows. After that, we talk about the exact flavour to use. If they take my advice in the first round, it is BSD. If they don't need Solaris, MacOSX, OpenBSD or NetBSD for a specific reason then there is no reason not to use FreeBSD. /czv
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?82067eb44fc2738952eaf5bdffa5a05c>