I agree,  not knowing in advance whether Linux will run on some
brand or type of PC has withheld me from buying one and using Linux,
I'd love to have a UNIX clone at home, and would gladly spend some
extra money to get a machine that's got X windows, a modem, POP/PPP,
a sound card etc. installed and working,  spending rare free hours
installing hardware and fixing installation problems just doesn't
attract me, and I think this is true for many other people.  

As for OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, the same argument holds expect for the
fact that the user base of these systems seems (?) to be much smaller
than Linux's,  although I've heard some UNIX specialists in a company
I've worked for praise NetBSD over the commercial UNIX this company was
selling.  Also,  I don't understand why there have to be three competing
*BSD projects,  the Linux gang seems better at keeping proselytes and
dissidents involved in the main stream ..

While posting ..
Does anyone know Linux vendors (Intel or Alpha) that deliver in the
Netherlands or neighbouring areas (Belgium, Germany) ?  The closest one
I found so far is based in Austria,  bit expensive to drive by just to
pick
one up ..

Pim van der Eijk wrote:

[ snip ]

Yes the user base does seem smaller.  I for one prefer BSD 4.4 (*BSD)
over
System-V look-alikes (Linux).  It seems that software first appears on
Linux,
then some kind sole ports it to FreeBSD.  There was a very recent thread
in
the FreeBSD news group about "competing" projects.  I got the feeling
there
were personality conflicts serious enough to warrant three different
flavors.

As I understand it, NetBSD is now running on MicroVAX II and VAX 3100's.

The installation of either Linux or FreeBSD seems relatively straight
forward.
However, at least for FreeBSD, there is a list of supported hardware
that you'll
first want to check out before buying any system to run it on.

In article <33694567.7...@nedernet.nl>,
Pim van der Eijk  <p...@nedernet.nl> wrote:

I think there's no doubt about that.

I don't find this surprising. In my (obviously biased, since I'm
a NetBSD developer) opinion, NetBSD is one of the best designed
OSes out there. I don't, however, hesitate to point out that this
may not mean much to you if you're not in the habit of poking around
in the kernel source code. :-)

Uh...is that why there are at least nine different Linux distributions?
(Keep in mind that the BSD sytems include a userland, so you have
to compare each BSD with a Linux distribution, not just a Linux
kernel.)

I won't get into all the details of this argument here, since it's
been gone through over and over again in the advocacy groups. But
take my word for it, Linux has its own fragmentation and its own
set of disadvantages. That doesn't prevent me from recommend it to
some users, though.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson    c...@portal.ca      Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc.     Through infinite myst, software reverberates
Vancouver, BC  (604) 257-9400      In code possess'd of invisible folly.

Pim van der Eijk <p...@nedernet.nl> wrote:

Oh hell.

Here we go again: a Linux vs BSD post crossposted to ten-bazillion
newsgroups, with statements that cause holy wars.

Stop with the holy wars, already!

And PLEASE be aware of the statements that start these holy wars.

--
XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci.     -   House of Retrocomputing
XCOMM  mailto:kpn...@pobox.com              -   http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
XCOMM  kpn...@eos.ncsu.edu              Spoken by Keir Finlow-Bates:
XCOMM "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!"

FreeBSD is x86 PC-only and very optimized.  NetBSD is very portable and
clean.  OpenBSD was claimed to be almost devoid of original development
at the moment, and AFAIK it went unopposed.

I say this without having installed either of them, so BSD people might
feel free to fill me in. :-)

The reason that the Linux kernel is unified is, IMHO, due to the
reasonable and likeable personality of Linus.  Even when FSF tried their
naming stunt and billions (well, maybe not, but it seemed so at the
time) was enraged, he was rather phlegmatic about the whole thing.

The only major dissidence in the Linux (kernel) community that I'm aware
of in recent times is the GGI stuff -- adding hardware drivers for
graphics in the kernel.

In practice, I think many of them are RedHats or Debians with a
different brand, or bundled with different commercial software.  The
ones to look out for are those two systems, with Slackware at a distant
third.  But you point is well taken.

I usually recommend RedHat, and the most compelling reason for that, is
that this is the distribution that I know best, and will be most
competent in assisting with the installation of.

That the package system is nice, that there's a large user community,
and that the install is so simple are good reasons also, of course, but
not good enough by themselves.

~kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

All of the *BSD's have pretty good web pages touting their features,
which a prospetive user would do well to examine:

        http://www.freebsd.org
        http://www.netbsd.org
        http://www.openbsd.org

What you say about FreeBSD seems like a reasonable summary, the NetBSD
vs. OpenBSD issue is more complicated.  Some kernel/machine-dependent
ports of OpenBSD have diverged little from NetBSD since the OpenBSD
effort split off, other kernel/machine-dependent ports have seen quite
a bit of development by the OpenBSD group, as has the whole machine
independent user area.

I was faced with a choice a month or so back, and went with OpenBSD,
mostly becuase there was more evidence of active development, and I
haven't regretted the choice, other people might have other criteria.

Anytime you have largely volunteer efforts, personalities and the
life/buisnees/managment experience of the developers that gravitate
to the core play a huge role.  It matters not whether you're talking
about Unix clones or running a folk music festival.

--
George Robbins - not working for,     work:   to be avoided at all costs...
but still emotionally attached to:    web:    http://www.netaxs.com/people/grr
Commodore, Engineering Department     domain: g...@tharsis.com
--
George Robbins - not working for,     work:   to be avoided at all costs...
but still emotionally attached to:    web:    http://www.netaxs.com/people/grr
Commodore, Engineering Department     domain: g...@tharsis.com

Charles McCrobie  <mccro...@usdesign.com> wrote:

The FreeBSD ports system is just way cool, which is why software appears
for it there first (it looks like even *fish* are doing it :-).  However,
the OpenBSD camp is already taking part in this, and using the ports system
to its advantage.

This is a good point, and a good reason for the different projects: conflicting
personalities generally mean different viewpoints, and different viewpoints
will go about developing different features and different aspects of research.
Some pretty good ideas can come out of this, and because of the great
adapability of the BSD kernel, the really good ones can be incorporated into
all the *BSDs.

The different projects are therefore a good idea; it would be a shame to
merge them.

~james