Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch oflicence Jihad crap

2001-01-07 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > You're saying the most common definition of "free" isn't no cost ? I'm a free man, not a commercial sample! Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.co

Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch oflicence Jihad crap

2001-01-06 Thread Ken Stox
I found this message to be so off base, that I felt it necessary to reply. I hope the original author wil not mind. On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > Claiming that software isn't "free" because it's not valuable is redefining > the word "free" to mean something that has no cost, yet

Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch oflicence Jihad crap

2000-12-28 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > If you slant your judgement so far against the other products, > it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about > (no offense). You need to point out the pros and cons of ALL > three systems. Not just the pros of FreeBSD and the con

Re: ONTOPIC - FreeBSD vs Linux, Solaris, and NT - Not a bunch oflicence Jihad crap

2000-12-28 Thread Chris Dillon
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > > The amount of free Windows software is much less than what is > > available for Unix. > > I almost choked to death on my Submarina Sandwich when I read > this. I think you need to take a step back and think a bit on > this one. Do you really think