Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:59:14 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Anthony Atkielski <anthony@atkielski.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Tiny starter configuration for FreeBSD Message-ID: <20011101155914.B30776@student.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <00d401c162d7$89c53ce0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <00d001c162d3$334891e0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <00d401c162d7$89c53ce0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 02:17:18PM +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Ted writes: > > > Netscape is an X client program so to run it you > > have to run both an X server and the X client program, > > Netscape. > > There's always Lynx. I even run Lynx on Windows sometimes, because it is very > fast and very secure. Lynx is nice, but unfortunately not all webpages are usable with lynx. > If this is Netscape 4.x we are talking about, it is so bug-laden that I wouldn't > run it on any platform. Netscape 6.x is only a very slight improvement. I haven't used Netscape 6, but I have tried Mozilla which largely uses the same source code as Netscape 6. Although it is generally better than Netscape 4.x it has one big disadvantage. It uses much more memory which makes it unusably slow on my machine at least. (Yes, I use 5-year old hardware. I will probably continue doing that until I get rich so I can afford a new machine.) > I note that Opera is available for Linux and Solaris. Does this mean it would > run on FreeBSD, too, or not? I recall reading about Linux binary compatibility > something, but I didn't install (I think) in order to keep things simple. Opera runs fine on FreeBSD using the Linux compatibility stuff. > > > Actually the indications I'm seeing is that the > > Linux name is rapidly acquiring more marketing muscle > > than UNIX. > > Linux has received a great deal of unjustified hype. I really do not understand > why anyone would choose Linux over a more complete version of UNIX > (oops--UNIX-like) OS. Since Linux apparently only defines the kernel, users > will inevitably be locked into a single vendor eventually--in fact, that seems > to be happening with Red Hat now. I don't know if the other Unix-like OSes are "more complete" but I agree that each Linux-distribution is effectively a separate OS with a ceratin amount of lock-in happening. > > > I can forsee a time in the future when the UNIX > > licensees are going to be advertising that they > > can run Linux software first ... > > So will FreeBSD run Linux stuff? It runs most Linux programs just fine. The exceptions are mainly stuff like device drivers that are highly kernel-dependant. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011101155914.B30776>