Daniel Bolgheroni schrieb:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Holger Kipp wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:47:35AM +0100, Michal wrote:
>>
>> For the masses:
>>
>> - NetBSD: Run on any hardware (including toasters)
>> - OpenBSD: Be as secure as possible
>> - FreeBSD: provide best system for x86-platfo
From: "Anton Parol"
OBSD is the best choice of OS for people who like violent little fish
mascots.
And it has blue-boot-console-thingy (tm) . Ace.
I wasn't going to contribute to this thread, but I have to ask. *What*
blue-boot-console-thingy?
I'm not sure it's sensible to do direct compar
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Charlie Kester
Sent: 19 June 2009 20:24
To: freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Open Vs Free BSD
On Fri 19 Jun 2009 at 11:23:26 PDT Michael R. Wayne wrote:
>
>OK, I&#
OBSD is the best choice of OS for people who like violent little fish
mascots.
And it has blue-boot-console-thingy (tm) . Ace.
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Holger Kipp wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:47:35AM +0100, Michal wrote:
>
> For the masses:
>
> - NetBSD: Run on any hardware (including toasters)
> - OpenBSD: Be as secure as possible
> - FreeBSD: provide best system for x86-platforms
It's a mistake to make this associ
Well said.. Wholeheartedly agree with the statement below.. Use what
works best for you and the situation you're going to use it for..
I personally use openSuSe with KDE for personal use (PC-BSD is nice too,
have been playing with that), but totally support Ubuntu and the
movement which they're
-
From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of
dem...@thephinix.org
Sent: 19 June 2009 12:42
To: freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org; misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Open Vs Free BSD
Oh why can't this versus this versus that never dies? There had been
raging debate about which OSes is muc
On 19 Jun 2009, at 14:02, Timo Schoeler wrote:
Sure, each one has its own merits over the others and
vice versa.
Above all, they contribute to the genetic diversity in the operating
system pool.
Which is a good thing.
- Ruben
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 01:02:40PM +0100, Michal wrote:
> It wasn't an argument or a versus anything. It was just a question relating
> to what he had said and the truth in it and the two OS's being used for
> different reasons. That's all. No rage, no debate or looking for any winner!
To be fair,
[mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of
dem...@thephinix.org
Sent: 19 June 2009 12:42
To: freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org; misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Open Vs Free BSD
Oh why can't this versus this versus that never dies? There had been
raging debate about which OSes is much better compared
I agree. Thanks for reminding. I will not reply to this one anymore.
Regards,
Cem
dem...@thephinix.org, 06/19/09 14:41:
Oh why can't this versus this versus that never dies? There had been
raging debate about which OSes is much better compared to the others since
time immemorial. Sure, each on
On Friday 19 June 2009 04:47:35 Michal wrote:
> Someone once said this too me
>
> "Comparing FreeBSD and OpenBSD, FreeBSD is generally better at disk-related
> I/O whereas OpenBSD handles net-I/O better. No test has been carried out to
> prove this though."
>
> Every offence to the person which sai
I have used NetBSD several years on mainly amd64 platform, and these are
+ properties.
- Xen support and boot NetBSD as dom0 and a Linux ie; Ubuntu as domU.
- Clean design of rc.d scripts. Also NetBSD does not automatically
populate rc.d scripts, user adds sample one (displayed after installin
Oh why can't this versus this versus that never dies? There had been
raging debate about which OSes is much better compared to the others since
time immemorial. Sure, each one has its own merits over the others and
vice versa. So why feeding this issue up since up to this very moment,
there is no w
and the security is in netbsd:
http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?security+8+NetBSD-5.0
http://www.netbsd.org/~elad/recent/recent06.pdf
On 6/19/09, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Kim Attree wrote:
>
>> NetBSD runs on just about anything. That's it's primary goal. Since I
>> don't
>> have any weird hard
nice guesses.
never let facts get into the way of a good story, right.
* Cem Kayali [2009-06-19 12:00]:
> Hi,
>
> Well basically, you need to pay for additional security implementations,
> and this sometimes costs decrease in performance --- though i think i
> can always pay for that...
>
>
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 09:47:35AM +0100, Michal wrote:
> Someone once said this too me
>
> "Comparing FreeBSD and OpenBSD, FreeBSD is generally better at disk-related
> I/O whereas OpenBSD handles net-I/O better. No test has been carried out to
> prove this though."
>
> Every offence to the perso
Hi,
Well basically, you need to pay for additional security implementations,
and this sometimes costs decrease in performance --- though i think i
can always pay for that...
Regards,
Cem
Kim Attree, 06/19/09 12:16:
You'll struggle to find a proper apples-to-apples test to prove/disprove tho
You'll struggle to find a proper apples-to-apples test to prove/disprove those
statements, but commonly held BSD Lore states:
FreeBSD offers the best performance, and it supports the most software. It's
commonly used for web or file servers and desktops. Also, FreeBSD is more
actively developed th
19 matches
Mail list logo
