From: arnold@skeeve.com
In article <10ktbbd$ge1$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross wrote:
>...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue. Why
>bother with Linux? What's so special about it that people feel
>_compelled_ to run it?
I don't use ZFS, so maybe your question is what's so special
about the combination of ZFS and Linux?
But if you're really asking the general question, I can tell you:
1. The user land is usually based on the GNU tools: No arbitrary limits
applies. I have no idea if there are still fixed limits in
the BSD user land.
2. These days, just about *everything* just works, without fuss or muss.
- Install on even fairly new hardware goes smoothly
- Installers are usually graphical
- One's choice of GUI environments (I use Ubuntu Mate)
- Software updates (at least on Ubuntu) work super smoothly
- Installing additional software is trivial
3. Linux performs quite well, and certainly better than Windows
(yeah, not the comparison).
I don't remember which BSD I recently tried to bring up in a VM
(maybe FreeBSD) but installation was like jumping back 40 years
in time to the ASCII-art spinning wheel. It didn't even come up
with a GUI, or else it was X with TWM and no menus, or something
ridiculous like that.
I'll agree. A lot of it is familiarity, but also the fact that I see no
compelling reason to switch. Why climb a brand new learning curve
just to get to the same point I'm already at?
I have real work to get done, I don't need to spend weeks learning
how BSD does the same thing I already know how to do.
4. The elephant in the room: Everybody else is on Linux, which
means if I want something commercial that only runs on Linux, I
can get it. Not so on *BSD.
I've been using Linux as my daily driver since mid-1997. It's done
real well for me. Why switch to something that I don't see is
better?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
