Re: [tlug] BSD vs BSD vs Linux

[bruno raoult <br@example.com>]

On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 07:42, Martin Baehr wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 09:11:10AM -0500, Stuart Luppescu wrote:
> > BSD is for people who love Unix; Linux is for people who hate Microsoft.
> > (Stolen from some unidentified, unremembered person's .sig)
> 
> so what do you do if you love unix and hate microsoft?
> i believe my love for unix is greater than my dislike of microsoft,
> so i should go with bsd, but i am lazy, and linux has better support and
> more software, so i go with that.
> 
> (when looking for something more challenging then i'll pick up hurd
> because of its unique design. (not the microkernel, but the userspace
> features))

I love Unix too, more than I dislike M$. And my favourite Unix would -
as of today - be Solaris. Unix does not mean free!

I do not think that the "BSD is for people who love Unix" statement is
correct.
<troll>SYSV systems are really superior</troll>, and I will always
remember the painful Sun 4 (BSD) to Sun 5 (SYSV) migration, in 94-96,
when I saw that the new (and buggy/unstable) system was much more easier
to use/administrate than the old one.

My statement would rather be: "Solaris is for people who love Unix,
Linux too, BSDxxx too... Most of *Unix* admins do not like M$ operating
systems - in fact the M$ admin point-and-click interface rather of the
OS itself."
Replace the fucking binary -including registry- conf files by ascii
ones, give a good telnet, remove the "X: drive" system, and Unix admins
will mostly feel happy with NT.

If I am right, it means that we care more the interface than the kernel
conception itself. M$ mixed both, we hate it. Would interface be
changed, we could change too...

br.

-- 
GPG Key: 653514E5 (http://www.raoult.com/gpg)
--
This sentence contradicts itself -- no actually it doesn't.
   -- Hofstadter

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part