Jump to content

Linux: Experiment or Taking Hold?


Recommended Posts

Guest ComputerBob
Plus I have to keep up on what's going on in Windows ... it's my bread and butter :P
MMMmmmmmmmmmmm... bread and butter..... aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggg.... :P (I better go upstairs and have some breakfast)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • zox

    5

  • Scot

    4

  • eksimba

    3

Guest LilBambi

Well, to tell the truth I love Windows, it is a beautiful operating system despite it's problems with earlier OSes.The worst part is (IMHO) ... just about the time M$ gets a stable version of Windows (WinXP) ... they try to ruin everything with the DRM (Digital Rights Management), snooping, and shooting themselves in the foot with their faux pax with security updates ... some people just never learn! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderRiver
I was dualbooting FreeBSD/Windows for a while, when the Windows HD failed (ah yeah the glorious 75GXPs...). I didn't have the time to get a replacement immediately, so I was "stuck" on FreeBSD for two months. When I got the replacement HD, I decided to not reinstall windows - haven't looked back since.What I like about FreeBSD is that I actually understand what's happening, that there's no dumbing down. If Windows suddenly starts accessing my HD or becomes slow, I don't know what the **** it's doing. I get weird error messages that tell me there's an error but not why or how I can solve the problem. All this is different with FreeBSD - with enough effort, I can understand 100% what my system is doing at any given point.And of course I can do things that I didn't dream of with windows... Unix is like lego. With simple tools you can assemble great castles. Windows is more like playmobil - it's fun, but you can't really leave the track that MS set down.
FreeBSD has about the same amount of features as in Gentoo Linux.Have you also considered about the bugs in FreeBSD? I would love to try out FreeBSD one day, but I have always though OpenBSD is more surperior than FreeBSD in general ThunderRIver
Link to post
Share on other sites
akorvemaker

Has anybody tried Knoppix?I tried Debian a bit once (a few years ago). I liked it, but it didn't like me. I ended up just going back to Win95b. It works well enough.Later I tried Mandrake (8.1, I think). It was slow on my computer, and compared with Debian, the package management was a source of constant frustration.Knoppix seems to be the best of both worlds. A nicely configured environment that becomes a Debian installation if it is copied to the hard drive. Otherwise, it just runs off the CD (which makes it nice and easy to try out).I'll be getting a new computer soon, and I'm planning to use Knoppix to get it up and running. It seems to be an easy way to introduce people to Linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you also considered about the bugs in FreeBSD? I would love to try out FreeBSD one day, but I have always though OpenBSD is more surperior than FreeBSD in general
I don't decide which software to use and which not to based on other people's blunt statements. I've heard "X is better than Y" (or "X is generally more superior than Y") way too many times. And often enough it's the start of a flame war...Why don't you tell me what exactly it is that makes OpenBSD better than FreeBSD.As for me, the reasons to go with FreeBSD instead of OpenBSD were mainly that there's more support and documentation available. And since my systems are running perfectly fine and I know the OS quite well by now, I see no reason to switch. From a technical point of view, the differences seem to be minimal anyway. New cool stuff in OpenBSD gets ported to FreeBSD and NetBSD (take pf as an example), and vice versa.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ThunderRiver
Have you also considered about the bugs in FreeBSD? I would love to try out FreeBSD one day, but I have always though OpenBSD is more surperior than FreeBSD in general
I don't decide which software to use and which not to based on other people's blunt statements. I've heard "X is better than Y" (or "X is generally more superior than Y") way too many times. And often enough it's the start of a flame war...Why don't you tell me what exactly it is that makes OpenBSD better than FreeBSD.As for me, the reasons to go with FreeBSD instead of OpenBSD were mainly that there's more support and documentation available. And since my systems are running perfectly fine and I know the OS quite well by now, I see no reason to switch. From a technical point of view, the differences seem to be minimal anyway. New cool stuff in OpenBSD gets ported to FreeBSD and NetBSD (take pf as an example), and vice versa.
OpenBSD is better than FreeBSD as far as server is concerned. OpenBSD has not had a bug for the past 7 years.FreeBSD is great for workstation because it has a lot of software support, and many people are porting software for FreeBSD. OpenBSD on the other hand, doesn't even have OpenOffice support.I do value the stability and reliablity of an OS, so I choose OpenBSD since I also use it for router. On the other hand, i would ONLY use FreeBSD for workstation
Link to post
Share on other sites
OpenBSD is better than FreeBSD as far as server is concerned. OpenBSD has not had a bug for the past 7 years.
Heh sorry to burst your bubble, but that is wrong :)OpenBSD's claim was no remote hole in the past n years. A remote root exploit is not the same as a bug. Also, a remote root exploit in OpenBSD was unfortunately found last summer, in the SSH daemon. So currently, and this is a quote directly from the OpenBSD homepage, it says: Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years! They make no claims however about bugs. I'm sure there's thousands of bugs in OpenSSH, just the way that there are thousands of bugs in any piece of software of this size. It's just that the OpenBSD folks go to great lengths with finding security-related bugs. If you don't believe me, click here, then click on "Query PRs" at the bottom. And these are just the bugs that are currently known and not yet fixed.The reason that OpenBSD has only had one remote hole is the default install is only in part rooted in the fact that they do security audits of their code. The other part is that by default, very few daemons are active. Code that doesn't run isn't a security risk. Note that I'm not trying to downtalk their achievements, I believe they're doing great work, and that this decision, enabling as little as possible by default, is 100% the right one.The reason OpenBSD is so great is that they're secure by default. Note that this is not an absolute claim, since in the end security comes down to how smart the administrator is. Linux can be tightened to be as secure as OpenBSD. Also, the work the OpenBSD team does is not justs OpenBSD specific - a lot of their achievements are ported to other OS'es; a prime example is OpenSSH, which is used by just about any free *nix.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...