| You make the same "properly administered" case for Linux against *BSD that the NT/2000 people make against Linux. --- Thomas, I like Linux. It has advantages. It's not big boy Unix. It's doing great things for the *nix mindshare. It's the better develpoment platform for Java in particular. --- The more I read about the *BSDs the more I like it compared to Linux. It's not becasue it's more robust or secure or any performance thing. It's the philosophy. I like the license. --- I still use Linux though. Anymore I use whatever's on the server. Linux, SunOS, or whatever. As long as it's *nix, I'm in business. --- My client doesn't matter anymore. I'm turning a 1981 Osborne1 into a portable thin client (with *WordStar* <g>) --- I just need a dumb terminal as always and shells an server space and remote Lynx and mail, BASH and a Lemurian world of discovery. --- I've become enthralled with CP/M. If we gave our kids machines like this, they'd have a meaningful understanding of the computer. Even more than by
starting with a Linux distro. The kids 20 years ago could learn to use computers and *did*. --- The worst thing that ever happened to PCs from a purely educational issue was that Crapware Borg assimilation of DOS. --- My mouse stopped working about six months ago. I haven't used it since (although I need to use a different machine to do secure transactions and stuff, but that's infrequent. --- I agree about every point you make about Linux vs *BSD except the performance stuff/TCP/IP stack and general relative maturity of development (and process). --- It's the better server. Now just roll with that and walk away with everything BUT the web server thing. Heck, you can even have the mail server thing. That web server thing. Your wrong wrong wrong. Now, go away. <g> -JCJ |
