Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:16:52 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Logo Contest Message-ID: <164808488.20050211081652@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <20050210200443.A82212@server1.ultratrends.com> References: <200502091349.00708.algould@datawok.com> <200502102013.14837.m.hauber@mchsi.com> <20050210193807.O82212@server1.ultratrends.com> <200502110302.j1B325XL082258@server1.ultratrends.com> <20050210200443.A82212@server1.ultratrends.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Technical Director writes: > "Okay Rob, you can have one FreeBSD box, on your desktop..." The first time I encountered FreeBSD, I dismissed it because of the name. It sounded like yet another geek hobbyist project, like Linux, and that was something I didn't think should run in a critical production environment. Even today, although I know that FreeBSD is indeed suitable for heavy-duty production environments, it's hard to recommend it for corporate and mission-critical use because there is no support structure for it, and unless a site has qualified UNIX administrators and programmers on staff (some sites do), FreeBSD--or any open-source UNIX system without a formal support structure--is a risky proposition. Sure, it may well run for twenty years without a boot ... but what if it _does_ crash? Whom do you call? That's what IT managers (rightly) worry about. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?164808488.20050211081652>