Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:10:10 +0000 From: Dick Davies <rasputnik@gmail.com> To: Martin Tournoy <carpetsmoker@gmail.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Message-ID: <3f1760601181010r1814041ci@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4dd4cddf0601180938u69c6d139o@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060118001911.0067816A436@hub.freebsd.org> <002401c61bfe$53864770$0807a8c0@admin> <4dd4cddf0601180447i25908100s@mail.gmail.com> <3f1760601180600l4050d396g@mail.gmail.com> <4dd4cddf0601180938u69c6d139o@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18/01/06, Martin Tournoy <carpetsmoker@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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'm not disputing that, I'm just saying rebuilding world so top still works with a new kernel might not be that much of a leap forward. [Incidentally, breaking backwards compatibilty was a conscious decision by = MS, according to: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html (briefly, they'd always tried hard to support older apps, which is where a lot of windows 'bloat' comes from. They dropped that fairly recently, and people (developers) are very unhappy about it) > > Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it. > Note that I used "much easy er" and not "easy" :) All I'm saying is these are universal problems. > > Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent > > imaging system for windows. > > Shell script...? as in: 'a simple matter of programming'....? :) My point is you need to write it, whereas you can get a supported solution for MS off the shelf. That sort of thing matters to an IT manager/director,= and they decide the budgets. > > > Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user frie= ndly 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) True, but OSX doesn't expose the CLI to the same extent BSD does. I wonder how many OSX users have subsequently started using BSD. > > 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" But there is a need for that sort of granularity in many cases. (I for one dislike running webservers as root just so they can open port 80, for instance). It could be (and is) done better elsewhere= , but 'good enough' stops it becoming widespread. > Never used Solaris so I can't say anything about their SMF, a (very) > quick glance reminded me of linux... check docs.sun.com when you have a spare few hours, you'll be surprised. > Anyway, rc isn't perfect, but it works for me, it atleast makes sense... Yeah, I much prefer it to the sysvinit nonsense <shudder>. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3f1760601181010r1814041ci>