Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:26:57 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thank you! Message-ID: <443663691.20050114052657@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <20050114004031.19630.qmail@web61307.mail.yahoo.com> References: <200501131807.j0DI7E329816@clunix.cl.msu.edu> <20050114004031.19630.qmail@web61307.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Boris Spirialitious writes: BS> Oh, but I do understand! FreeBSD is not good choice for companies BS> that need support for the latest hardware. It's not a question of latest, it's a question of which hardware. FreeBSD, like all operating systems, targets a broad but not universal user base, and so the mix of hardware that it supports doesn't cover every conceivable device, although it will naturally overlap for the most part with any other OS. For example, given the predominance of FreeBSD as a heavy-duty server (a quick check of the Web will readily show that FreeBSD is being used all over the place), I'd expect to see relatively weak support for joysticks and game accessories, and relatively strong support for backup devices and terminals. I'd expect to see the opposite with Linux, which is heavily promoted as a desktop OS. I use FreeBSD as a straight server OS, and it seems to support whatever devices I care to connect to it in that capacity. I don't have very exotic requirements, though. It is also true that the more widely used and/or better funded an OS is, the more devices it usually supports. Many people are trying to make money with Linux, so they get it to support more devices; and it has a large user base, which encourages more people and companies to volunteer hardware support. Windows is in a similar position. Even with Windows, though, you see differences: NT-based systems traditionally have had better support for server-oriented devices (like FreeBSD), whereas consumer versions of Windows emphasized game ports, fancy video cards, and the like. Currently I consider FreeBSD the best available choice for a server, and if it weren't for FreeBSD, I'd probably select one of the other open-source BSDs. Linux is too incoherent and desktop-oriented today for heavy server use, IMO. And if I want a pure desktop, I just run Windows. For companies with a minimal IT staff, I'd recommend Windows 2000 for servers in most cases. If they have a qualified IT staff, I might suggest some commercial flavor of UNIX. If they have a very qualified IT staff, I might suggest FreeBSD. The reason for requiring the qualified IT staff for FreeBSD is not that FreeBSD is any less reliable than the other choices; it's just that FreeBSD has no formal support structure that one can call at 3 AM to fix a broken server, whereas commercial OS publishers usually do (even then, if the staff is really clueless, it's safest for them to avoid any type of UNIX entirely). For desktops, I always recommend Windows. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?443663691.20050114052657>