FreeBSD is way ahead for serious users. I'm talking about people running high-availability and high-traffic servers, and workstation users who need a stable and reliable operating system.
Most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer. FreeBSD may not have the best accelerated 3D graphics drivers, or the flashiest X desktops and themes, but it's there when you need it, and it doesn't disappoint.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday November 26, 2009 @04:15PM (#30239338)
Seriously - some anonymous person makes vague claims about how it's "higher quality" - without defining "quality" or providing any citations, reasons, or examples, and it's modded "insightful"?!?! TWICE!??!!
What. The. Fuck!??!!
Here's my refutation of this post - containing just as much "insightful" commentary as yours:
Given that any sysadmin worth his salt knows that Linux and FreeBSD offer different tradeoffs between "completeness" and "rigorous quality", it's not unreasonable for him to point out that FreeBSD has a "higher quality", even if the actual words he uses are subjective. Everyone familiar with FreeBSD and several Linux distros would know what he's saying and agree.
Unfortunately, I can't say that your "nuh-uh" also resounds with common experience in this way, so I disagree with your contention that it is a val
AFAIK, "Nuh-uh" means something naughty with a polar bear, in Eskimo. I suspect there is common experience involved, otherwise there wouldn't be an expression for it.
So, (provided that he's an Eskimo) the AC wins. QED.
PS. I also maintain both *nux and *bsd environments, and I fully agree with the original statement. All my mission critical stuff runs bsd.
Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.
Funny how similar the free Unices are (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of this could be from a Linux distribution list of new features... Slightly ahead in some ways, slightly behind in others.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
FreeBSD is way ahead for serious users. I'm talking about people running high-availability and high-traffic servers, and workstation users who need a stable and reliable operating system.
Most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer. FreeBSD may not have the best accelerated 3D graphics drivers, or the flashiest X desktops and themes, but it's there when you need it, and it doesn't disappoint.
How the fuck is this insightful?!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously - some anonymous person makes vague claims about how it's "higher quality" - without defining "quality" or providing any citations, reasons, or examples, and it's modded "insightful"?!?! TWICE!??!!
What. The. Fuck!??!!
Here's my refutation of this post - containing just as much "insightful" commentary as yours:
Nuh-uh!
So, where are *my* "insightful" mods?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Given that any sysadmin worth his salt knows that Linux and FreeBSD offer different tradeoffs between "completeness" and "rigorous quality", it's not unreasonable for him to point out that FreeBSD has a "higher quality", even if the actual words he uses are subjective. Everyone familiar with FreeBSD and several Linux distros would know what he's saying and agree.
Unfortunately, I can't say that your "nuh-uh" also resounds with common experience in this way, so I disagree with your contention that it is a val
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, "Nuh-uh" means something naughty with a polar bear, in Eskimo. I suspect there is common experience involved, otherwise there wouldn't be an expression for it.
So, (provided that he's an Eskimo) the AC wins. QED.
PS. I also maintain both *nux and *bsd environments, and I fully agree with the original statement. All my mission critical stuff runs bsd.