yeap. i run FreeBSD at home as firewall. Why not linux ? Because FreeBSD is really really stable. drawback is that you won't find last driver as you find with linux.
i heard stories that IT people forgot where servers running FreeBSD physicaly where located...
MacOS/X is based on Derwin, as FreeBSD kernel evolution. But FreeBSD, as Manta underlined it, is an evolution of original Berkeley Unix. And NetBSD and OpenBSD are forks of FreeBSD.
SuSE or Mandrake
-
ComteZero
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am
SuSE or Mandrake
/* Trust is good, no trust is better. */
-
manta
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am
SuSE or Mandrake
Comte,
It was a long time since I had this lack of drivers. Since version 4.5 they included a lot of new drivers. Of course my habit to look at the FreeBSD page before buying anything has helped. Wink
Regarding losing the servers that don't fail I have experienced this when I was helping a bank merge on 93. We walk around and start finding servers, Internet links, etc. Big Smile
It was a long time since I had this lack of drivers. Since version 4.5 they included a lot of new drivers. Of course my habit to look at the FreeBSD page before buying anything has helped. Wink
Regarding losing the servers that don't fail I have experienced this when I was helping a bank merge on 93. We walk around and start finding servers, Internet links, etc. Big Smile
IT unhelpful desk
-
LondonPete
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am
SuSE or Mandrake
OK hackerz, Debian rulez, but for ease of use at home - which one SuSE or Mandrake (2.6 kernel already shipping in the latest version).
You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
-
ComteZero
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am
SuSE or Mandrake
i never used SuSE but, as far as i know, i would place SuSE between Debian and Mandrake in term of ratio server/desktop use.
If you come from RH, i guess Mandrake is closer.
but try Debian, its packaging system is simply great.
If you come from RH, i guess Mandrake is closer.
but try Debian, its packaging system is simply great.
/* Trust is good, no trust is better. */
-
quantie
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am
SuSE or Mandrake
>>Psst!!! Don't tell them... jeeez!
Well I can see fdax liking it with his G-5's.
Frankly I like the macintosh and a friend of mine keeps raving about how the motorolla processors were way ahead of their time & mass-market went the intel way. The only problem I have with them is that they try to lock you into things. (Until OS-X)
Me thinks, trying to sell stuff this way is so much like SGI trying to sell its graphics workstations. Hopefully they will un-tie the knots between their hardware and software. Till recently the only wifi card that would work on the powerbook was the apple stuff. That is so old fashioned way of keeeping people tied up no? rant..over
Between mandrake and suse i would go with Suse simply because Yast is so much better for a novice compared to fixing stuff in /etc the mandrake way.
Mandrake is very much like redhat so if you are used to the redhat way of doing things then by all means. If you aren't downloading these stuff and are buying it off the shelf then get Suse they usually had a 6 cd distro and saves you the time and trouble of looking for things and upgrading libraries etc. And yes if this is your first time talk to your local linux user group there are always people who'd help.
Well I can see fdax liking it with his G-5's.
Frankly I like the macintosh and a friend of mine keeps raving about how the motorolla processors were way ahead of their time & mass-market went the intel way. The only problem I have with them is that they try to lock you into things. (Until OS-X)
Me thinks, trying to sell stuff this way is so much like SGI trying to sell its graphics workstations. Hopefully they will un-tie the knots between their hardware and software. Till recently the only wifi card that would work on the powerbook was the apple stuff. That is so old fashioned way of keeeping people tied up no? rant..over
Between mandrake and suse i would go with Suse simply because Yast is so much better for a novice compared to fixing stuff in /etc the mandrake way.
Mandrake is very much like redhat so if you are used to the redhat way of doing things then by all means. If you aren't downloading these stuff and are buying it off the shelf then get Suse they usually had a 6 cd distro and saves you the time and trouble of looking for things and upgrading libraries etc. And yes if this is your first time talk to your local linux user group there are always people who'd help.
Blistering Barnacles;Thundering Typhoons
-
MrBen
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am
SuSE or Mandrake
The desktop Redhat distro was moved to the Fedora project (naturally sponsored
by Redhat). Its at http://fedora.redhat.com/
Just took a look throiugh the update (I'm using RH9), and its cool that Tomcat,
Struts, and a whole bunch on OS XML stuff is integrated.
On this topix also note that there was talk of Sun buying Novell, which would
give them control of SUSE.
by Redhat). Its at http://fedora.redhat.com/
Just took a look throiugh the update (I'm using RH9), and its cool that Tomcat,
Struts, and a whole bunch on OS XML stuff is integrated.
On this topix also note that there was talk of Sun buying Novell, which would
give them control of SUSE.
-
LondonPete
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am
SuSE or Mandrake
It was the "third party" development of Fedora that turned me off. Oh the Linux irony.
You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
-
MrBen
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am
SuSE or Mandrake
In short I think all the (free) Linux distro are much the same, with the desktop having
a different look. Where was a time when Mandrake had a file system which was
more robust after crashes. It also had the repretation of being easy to use....
But as far as I can tell all are easy to use now... At least the installers work...
however hardware `plug and play' is another issue.
On another note is there any value in getting the commercial offering from
RedHat or others?
a different look. Where was a time when Mandrake had a file system which was
more robust after crashes. It also had the repretation of being easy to use....
But as far as I can tell all are easy to use now... At least the installers work...
however hardware `plug and play' is another issue.
On another note is there any value in getting the commercial offering from
RedHat or others?
-
ComteZero
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am
SuSE or Mandrake
Hey Manta,
I only use FreeBSD for my firewall (so system is nearly base-system), but after 10Y on GNU/Linux Debian, i am considering moving to FreeBSD... which seems to be less messy. Do you confirm this impression ?
One thing that upset me, for instance, is you want to install X, and it installs Abiword as dependency.... you want to install mutt and it installs Exim, even if you already have Postfix installed...
Is it the same thing with FreeBSD ?
I only use FreeBSD for my firewall (so system is nearly base-system), but after 10Y on GNU/Linux Debian, i am considering moving to FreeBSD... which seems to be less messy. Do you confirm this impression ?
One thing that upset me, for instance, is you want to install X, and it installs Abiword as dependency.... you want to install mutt and it installs Exim, even if you already have Postfix installed...
Is it the same thing with FreeBSD ?
/* Trust is good, no trust is better. */
-
manta
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:00 am
SuSE or Mandrake
Comte,
I liked FreeBSD mostly because it was very easy to navigate the code. I have done several kernel compiles myself because it was an easy way to tailor the machine to my needs. In Linux the code is much less organized and I never feel like I want to recompile the kernel today.
That said, if you use the builtin package system to install software (and therefore save on countless hours of config files changes) you are expose to the dependencies. So when you install a software, other are installed and this is decided by someone else (the guy that writed the package configuration). It should be noted, however, that the dependencies are much lighter, for instance you can install the X without a window manager (not very useful I know, but at least is flexible).
For instance, recently I wanted to install FreeRadius working with a MySQL DB, however the guy that prepared the package have decided that the "normal" thing is to have the FreeRadius with a LDAP backend instead. Therefore the installation with the package system was not straighforward.
In your example mutt has as dependencies autoconf, automake, docbook, gettext, jade,libiconv, m4, openssl and perl.
I hope this helps,
manta
I liked FreeBSD mostly because it was very easy to navigate the code. I have done several kernel compiles myself because it was an easy way to tailor the machine to my needs. In Linux the code is much less organized and I never feel like I want to recompile the kernel today.
That said, if you use the builtin package system to install software (and therefore save on countless hours of config files changes) you are expose to the dependencies. So when you install a software, other are installed and this is decided by someone else (the guy that writed the package configuration). It should be noted, however, that the dependencies are much lighter, for instance you can install the X without a window manager (not very useful I know, but at least is flexible).
For instance, recently I wanted to install FreeRadius working with a MySQL DB, however the guy that prepared the package have decided that the "normal" thing is to have the FreeRadius with a LDAP backend instead. Therefore the installation with the package system was not straighforward.
In your example mutt has as dependencies autoconf, automake, docbook, gettext, jade,libiconv, m4, openssl and perl.
I hope this helps,
manta
IT unhelpful desk