Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:41:22 +0000 From: Martin Tournoy <carpetsmoker@gmail.com> To: Spiros Papadopoulos <spap@avrolymos.com> Cc: Matias <matiassurdi@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Message-ID: <4dd4cddf0601180941uf82a71aw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200601181739.k0IHcx43027939@smtp-los04.proxy.aol.com> References: <dqlodb$isn$1@sea.gmane.org> <200601181739.k0IHcx43027939@smtp-los04.proxy.aol.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dick Davies =3D> Sorry for sending you this mail twice, accidently pressed enter...(shoudn't eat and write e-mails at the same time...) > So what? That's exactly the same for FreeBSD, even it's core apps. > And vendors rush to support MS' new OSes. There's a very big dump of unmaintained software, whenever I want to play an old "classic" game like c&c, x-com or even system shock 2(which is from '99) I have serious problems, and have to resort to emulation software (which is quite different from compat4x for example, which is compatibility and not emulation) I've never had a problem with old software on FreeBSD, there are probably many but much less. > Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it. Nope, but I've been reading this mailing list long enough to know it's a real pain, but I'm quite sure it is possible. Note that I used "much easy er" and not "easy" > There are tools to solve this for windows, and there has been > for a long time. Yet another third-party hack? > Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent > imaging system for windows. Shell script...? > > Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friend= ly GUI. > Then it isn't for the masses. Deal with it. This really wasn't my point, what I tried to say was that UNIX isn't the "big user-unfriendly beast" some people like you to believe, and that it can serve as user-friendly desktop just as well as Windows can (MacOS is a good example of this) > It's also very outdated and has been reinvented several times. > RBAC, SeLinux and MAC would indicate it's not flexible enough for > most people. Not flexible enough for some people that is, not most, every system has it's ups and downs, and the standard permissions work for just about all desktop PCs and most "hobby-servers" > That's not in itself a good thing. As I understand it, the registry is a = > central place for storing configuration details. More or less, however, it sucks, open regedit and browse through it and you'll know what I mean, names are cryptic and non-descriptive, the hierarchy doesn't make sense, and worst, it's undocumented.. Which means that hacking the registry is something similair to hacking sendmail.cf Editing ten diffrent files to change one thing is easyer, quicker and leads to less heacache then changing something in the registry... > Have a look at things like Solaris SMF and you realise that rcNG isn't > = as good as it could be either. Never used Solaris so I can't say anything about their SMF, a (very) quick glance reminded me of linux... Anyway, rc isn't perfect, but it works for me, it atleast makes sense...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4dd4cddf0601180941uf82a71aw>