Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO
From: Bill Vermillion (bv_at_wjv.com)
Date: 05/27/05
- Next message: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: XP to 5.0.6 via anzio"
- Previous message: Ronald J Marchand: "XP to 5.0.6 via anzio"
- In reply to: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Next in thread: Joe Dunning: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 19:25:00 GMT
In article <v4le91db3101si3rbhog5ms6kpuek99vo1@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 May 2005 15:25:01 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:
>>And for the things I do, technical superiority means a lot.
>>Jeff had asked in email why I chose what I did, and I never try to
>>get people to believe my way is the right way - it's just the
>>right way for me.
>Which Jeff? I think that was me and many years ago.
Sorry. It was Jeff Hynam from Cactus.com [the home of Lone-Tar].
He had sent me email with cc's to the news server at JPR and
xenitec.on.ca. He apparently never posted the message to the 'net
but I included all of his message in my reply. I thought it was
just an individual message until I was ready to send it, and then
went back and masked out the name of one of his customers.
>The problem I
>had at the time was that it was apparent that I was going to need an
>alternative to OpenServer. UW7 was too expensive. I was prepared to
>make an investment in time learning the system but didn't have time to
>try and test fly each Unix/Linux mutation available. I'd already been
>confused by Caldera Linux, got lost in Debian, got burned by Red Hat
>when they dropped support for individual users, and wasn't even sure
>what I was looking for. FreeBSD looked good from the Unix
>compatibility and reliability point of view, but I was stuck with two
>application vendors that would not support their packages on FreeBSD.
>I'm still not sure which is the right answer or right compromise. I'm
>currently pushing SUSE 9.2/9.3 which has its own collection of minor
>issues. However, it seems good enough for what I need (this week).
Too bad the vendors won't support it. The sysvr4 commpatibility is
pretty good, and for the most part so is Linux compatibility. I've
seen some aps compiled on/for Linux that didn't present the proper
brand to the OS, so it just required running 'brandelf' to brand
them as Linux [type 3]. They defaulted to type 0 which is unknown.
The only real pain is Java. Since The FreeBSD Foundation is
non-profit and does't have huge piles of money like some commercial
sites, they haven't been able to get a binary approved for
distibution from Sun, so it means compiling your own. It often
works, but sometimes it does not. There is an official 1.3 binary,
but all the newer stuff needs to be compiled after downloading
the core source from Sun.
>I have an uncommon view of "technical superiority" which considers it
>a compromise with reliability and stability. It is my contention that
>the addition of the latest high tech features, functions, and hardware
>support, often cause reliability issues. Support for the weird and
>wonderful is a necessary evil, but certainly a pain.
I agree with that. And support for 'the weird and wonderful' does
not always mean 'technical superiorty'. Sometimes they are quite
kludge-like.
>I wish I had the necessary fortitude to not shove my opinions down
>other peoples throats. I consider it a personal challenge to
>"educate" people and often get involved in flame wars and protracted
>debates over esoteric trivia. Self control and diplomacy are not my
>best attributes.
The mark of a true genius.
Bill
-- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
- Next message: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: XP to 5.0.6 via anzio"
- Previous message: Ronald J Marchand: "XP to 5.0.6 via anzio"
- In reply to: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Next in thread: Joe Dunning: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
