OSNews

I just thought this is a nice place to mention NetBSD as an alternative. In many respects comparable to FreeBSD, but available on dozens of platforms.

To the poster above: the author did mention *BSD on the first page of the story but didn't elaborate. A fairly good introductory article, but I think he got partitions and slices confused. FreeBSD calls slices what everyone else calls partitions. Within a slice, FreeBSD has additional units called partitions. Anyway, very confusing and an easy mistake to make. Also, as for package selection I usually only install the base and source. Then, I cvsup to whatever version I want to run, cvsup the ports to the latest, build world and install any ports that I want (bash, XFree86, etc.).

IIRC, the FreeBSD slice method is a bit easier to handle than partitions. At least on X86 systems, a slice is actually a partition. Within the slice, you can divy it up all you want (into / /home /usr, etc) and not have to worry about the partitioning limitations of the X86 architecture.

Right of the bat, let me say that I love FreeBSD. I'm running 4.2 on a poor old 486/33 16MB server and it handles NAT, cvs, telnet, and public ftp without nary a hickup. However, FreeBSD does have some problems on the desktop:

1) Its sound architecture is really antiquated, even compared to OSS on Linux.
2) It lacks the NVIDIA OpenGL drivers, although a project is underway to remedy this.
3) Its more optimized for high load rather than raw speed. Since workstations tend to be lightly loaded (usually) this isn't the best use of resources.
4) Its not media-suitable at all. The interrupt handling needs a lot of decrufting, and no low-latency support has yet surfaced.

Just a few clarifications for the FreeBSD curious ...

1) FreeBSD would be far from extinct without Linux bin compatability. This is obviously ignorance on the authors part. ( not stupidity ) In fact, there are *very* few packages written for a *nix that do not compile natively on FreeBSD. ( If you don't believe me, go and have a look at the ports collection. The bin compat libs are handy for things like quake or staroffice 5.2 that are not available or have only recently been made available in source form.

2) FreeBSD does in fact have pre-configured base system installs, they are just a lot more 'base' than most *nix base distros. ( thank god, I would hardly consider a home video organizer to be a must have for my default install like some .. ahem .. other *nix distros ) FreeBSD currently makes a distinction between distributions and packages. A distro being your generic kernel, binutils, core libs etc ... and packages being anything you wish to add to the base distro. Base distos can be customized. ( bin +/- sources +/- kernel sources +/- Xfree86 +/- ports collection ... ) I might also add, the FreeBSD package system may be ( not for long ... libh, openpackage ) antiquated, but it is far better maintianed and organized than most collections available. X window manager configuration is handled post install through the FreeBSD. It is a one check box selection in the configuration menu to have kde, gnome or windowmaker up and running. However, x must be configured maualy first.

3) I would hardly call BSD a immature operating system. I don't know a professional in the IT industry that wouldn't at least place bsd at the top of the candidate list to exploit for mission critical internet related services. Who can argue that this cannot be directly attributed to its extremely stable, secure and yes mature codebase.

4) Yes, FreeBSD is still catching up in some areas. They are busy coding things like fine grained SMP support ( estimated to scale well to 32+ processors ) and better multi platform support over things like ... better sound support. This is all true. One thing I can say, is that the bsd folks may not be the first to do it, but when they focus on somthing they tend to get it right, really right.

-Matthew

I would say that freeBSD is a better starter *nix than any linux distribution. The reason is that it is very easy to install and its directory structure and way of doing things is standardized. It is also tightly controlled in its development, which makes for a more logically organized system.

Now, granted, *BSD is a complete OS, where as Linux itself is just the kernal, but I would rather use the complete one since I am not looking to hack the kernal or make my own distro...if that was your interest, then I would say Linux is the way to go.

Either way, it is better than M$, so who's counting. I do REALLY like FreeBSD. Haven't played with other *BSD's, but I hear good things about them as well.

BTW, there is also the TrustedBSD project at http://www.trustedbsd.org

Brett

...Matthew said most of the things I'd say. I'm using a FreeBSD workstation at work and there's very little that I run through Linux binary emulation. You'll find in practice that BSD's ports system encourages you to comple things from source--edit the /etc/make.conf file to tune the build process to your system, then do the 'make install' in the port directory you want, and you get binaries optimized for your machine.

I'd also have to say that for what it's worth, X configuration under FreeBSD wasn't pleasant but it wasn't an excruciating nightmare. The biggest problem with it is that the standard FreeBSD system installer is Xfree 4 ignorant. If you just install Xfree 4.1.0 and run "X --configure" from the command line as root, it writes the configuration file for you, and it usually needs very little tweaking (it seems to actually talk to plug and play monitors, for instance, and figures out its own damn refresh rates).

And, no, FreeBSD sure ain't immature. Its roots predate Linux's (it's the most direct descendant of 386BSD, the first "free" Unix operating system) and it's been deployed in some pretty heavy production servers, like, say, Yahoo.

It just so happens that a new BSD/BeOS story has been posted to BeDoper today. I'm installing 4.4 over the break. And VMWare, just to be on the safe side...

BeDoper
http://www.404company.com/bedoper

Addressing Matthew and others from above...re-read the article with the title in mind: FreeBSD as a WORKSTATION for Unix newbies. This is not a review of the FreeBSD Operating System as a whole. It is a review of FreeBSD as an independant full-time OS as an alternative to other OSes. Perhaps viewing it from this angle will skew your opinion of the article. Calling FreeBSD a mature OS for Unix newbies is simply not accurate in my opinion.

Adam,

I think my comments regarding your article were right on target. Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Im glad that you spent the time to give BSD a review and for that I thank you. However, I do feel the need to clarify some obvious misconceptions that you or others may have about the distro as a whole. I feel its my resposabiliy as an informed BSD user. I also think it is your responsability as an author to not make such broad statements about an os ( such as it is immature ) with little qualification to support your statement. For newbies reading an article such as yours, it can be quite confusing.

For example, if I was curious about switching to a new desktop operating system and read your article and had limited experience with *nix os's, I would definately be discouraged by your comment. All sorts of assumptions can be construed from such a statement like ... it may run on a unproven/unstable kernel, poor video or bad sound support, fewer options for desktop enviroments or no multimedia software. Actually, I would probably have stopped reading your article right there thinking, well this doesn't sound like a very good solution. I would like to hear about a few of the day to day applications that you would expect to see run on a *nix that couldn't be run natively on FreeBSD. The truth is, its not FreeBSD that is behind in the desktop arena, but all *nix flavors in general when compared to the M$ os family.

As a testimonial to FreeBSD's capabilities, I use it as a destop os at work and at home. I can watch my multimedia including dvd's ( xine or videolan ), I can browse the internet ( konqeror, netscape or mozilla ) I can do my instant messaging ( yahoo IM client ) I can use shared windows folders and printers ( samba or native kernel smb requester ) and I can rip my cd's ( grip ) and listen to my mp3z ( xmms ) all with natively compiled applications installed conveinently from cd or ftp via the well organized ( cant stress that enough ) freebsd package manager. Exactly, where is it lacking ... speaking strictly from a desktop perspective of course :|

btw ...

I run an amd 1400, adaptec 2940uw w/ IBM uw drive, ( ide support is execlent however ) nvidia Geforce2 w/sblive ... Good ol' desktop hardware

-Matthew

Unix-on-Intel players agree on a common binary
(It's the Linux ELF format)

http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html for more details

..and absolutely love it. If you read the documentation and actually build the server with supported hardware from the start you will save yourself much frustration and humiliation. Sound has not been a problem at all. Just get yourself a supported card and off you go. Hmm, you want window managers, I use KDE, Enlightenment, and WindowMaker. They all work like a charm. Granted, FreeBSD is not as easy to configure as a desktop when compared to Mandrake Linux, but god forbid people actually understand how their operating system works and spend some time learning how to do things for themselves. I realize this is probably asking way too much.

>Unix-on-Intel players agree on a common binary
>(It's the Linux ELF format)
>
>http://www.telly.org/86open/index.html for more details

wow. He Who Shall Ne Nameless talks about a lack of history, yet does not even know the history of the ELF file format himself/herself.

ELF executables were running on IRIX, Solaris and HPUX machines long before they ever ran on Linux.

Who wrote the ELF spec? was it Linux? nope. it was USL! UNIX System Laboratory.

I have to say the first time I tried FreeBSD 4.4, having been using Linux for years..it is a little different, for example the directory tree takes a little getting used to it, but the OS just felt that more mature, the boot messages on boot for example remind me more of "Real" unix that Linux (which after all is only a unix-alike).

The only thing I came across, is the slightly less hardware and software support.

But as far as the article goes, mentioning Unix for newbies, I think FreeBSD would be a far worse choice than for example Mandrake Linux, which is a dream to install compared to previous Linux/Unix distributions.

Well?

The short version: The X86 players (SCO, FreeBSD, Linus and others) all got together to decide on a common format. What ended up happening is ELF as implemented by Linux became the common format.

FreeBSD's Linux link has more history with the X86 unity effort than some misplaced "if it wasn't for Linux, FreeBSD would be dead" statement.

How is the ELF format comming out of USL effect the meeting desiring a common X86 UNIX format for executables, and ELF as implemented on Linux becomming that standard?

I just read the link. You're wrong. You're getting ABI and binary format mixed up. The article states that there is basicaly no point to creating a common binary format (which wasn't supposed to replace the system-native one anyway) because everyone can run Linux (and by extension ELF) binaries. They never said anything about the Linux's ELF (which is the same as any other ELF) becoming the standard on x86. The switch to ELF by most x86 OSs (including FreeBSD) has little to do with Linux and everything to do with GCC. Because almost all x86 OSs (certainly the free ones) use GCC to compile the system, they have to use the binary format used by GCC. GCC uses ELF, everyone switches to ELF. GCC changes the binary standard, everyone changes the binary standard. You can get more info at this page: http://www.pl.freebsd.org/FAQ/FAQ203.html

I certainly hope not to start a holy flame war about which flavour of BSD is best, but I thought I would add my $0.02 regarding OpenBSD.

I recently set up a firewall for my home network. I know very little about firewalls and Internet security, but while reading up I came across several reviews recommending OpenBSD as a very secure, stable OS. Other articles, however, seemed to dissuade newbies from OpenBSD, claiming it was difficult to install and configure. I'm an experienced UNIX user, but I'm no guru, so these made me think twice. Regardless, I figured that I was out to set up a firewall and learn as much as I could in the process, so I decided to go for it.

I was very, very impressed. The install was simple (the fact that it requires only a singly boot disk is very convenient), and although certain concepts required background research (stuff like BSD disklabels), I found the documentation to be excellent and very complete. I really liked the minimalist install, which gives you the basics and allows you to build on top of that based on your own needs. Setting up a DHCP server, a firewall, and network address translation was far easier than I had anticipated, and these were all things that I had never done before. The pkg_add command and the ports tree make installing new software very simple, and the system was rock solid, staying up for a full four months before I took it down to install the recently released OpenBSD 3.0.

OpenBSD surprised me again just this past week, when I was looking for a new OS for my laptop. I had the impression that FreeBSD was the way to go for desktop BSD installs on x86 based machines and that it supported the widest range of hardware, but lo and behold my CardBus ethernet adapter is not supported in FreeBSD but is in OpenBSD. CardBus is planned for FreeBSD 5.0, but installing a snapshot of the -CURRENT tree proved to be difficult, and I couldn't get it to work. Because of this, I'll be installing OpenBSD on my laptop tonight to get my first taste of how it performs on the desktop.

I agree that OpenBSD is perhaps not the best starting point for someone who has never used UNIX, but users who know their way around should give it some thought. I was certainly pleasantly surprised by it!

I guess I may as well toss in my 2 or more cents here.

I've used FreeBSD and OpenBSD for a couple of years now, on my servers, workstations, and even my trusty laptop.

I wholeheartedly agree on the sound issues, I've had a horrible time with sound on my laptop, granted it's some POS chip that no one's ever heard of...

About the Linux compatability, sure it's nice, but it's really not important to the survival of FreeBSD. In two years of using FreeBSD for pretty much everything (except for playing Half-Life), I've only needed the emulation on one or two occasion (to run a Half-Life server).

Overall, a pretty good intro.

I'd like to add that FreeBSD has one of the best third-party user guides available for any Unix or Unix-like OS:

The Complete FreeBSD
by Greg Lehey
June, 1999, Walnut Creek; ISBN: 1571762469

The chapters on installing FreeBSD and configuring XWindows, two of the things this above article mentioned as being difficult, are especially well done.

most of the ELF conversion came about as the common format (AOut) was severly lacking in any detail + information. it basically has a text/data/bss segs and thats it. doing dynamic loading hacks on aout is just that, huge hacks, requiring lots of manual work.

ELF handles all that and more, better debugging info, dynamic linking, etc. Thats why ELF is commonly used.

>How is the ELF format comming out of USL effect the meeting desiring a
>common X86 UNIX format for executables, and ELF as implemented on
>Linux becomming that standard

since all the BIG unix players used ELF, ofcourse the little unix players would want to switch to what the big boys were using, that and the fact all the little x86 unix boys were using the technically lacking aout format.

you keep talking about Linux ELF, of which there is no such thing. ELF is a standardised file format, there is nothing Linux about it.

the same as PE files, while nativly used by Windows, you could convert the entire linux system to use the PE file format, that would not make it Linux PE, since PE is just a standardised format based on the old format of COFF.

: )

I have enjoyed using FreeBSD for a few reasons, ----,-----,----,----.

First, I enjoy the stability of the OS. I used RH6.2 - kernel 2.2.19 but I did have stability issues. I keep my workstation turned on all the time. I feel very confident using an OS on my desktop that many ISP at a high level use in mission-critical applications, email, database, etc.

Secondly, the ports/package collections are wonderful. Having 1 repository for programs/information is the best. If I want to find a program I do a search for it in a directory and returns the results. If I can't find a program in the ports I can create one myself and become the port manager. I have only found a few programs that haven't had a port created for them. Again, only a few.

Thirdly, the Linux binary support is wonderful. I run VMWare and StarOffice 5.2 both for 8 hours per day without closing the applications. I can enjoy Mozilla-current also .

Also, one of the best resources I have is my best friend who has used FreeBSD since 2.21-Release. I can ask a question anytime. My $0.02.

I started as a newbie with Linux 18 months ago, I tried every version available for the iX86 platform, then I discovered the (free, net, Open)BSD family and haven't looked back since. Do your reserch on the net and you'll discover why freeBSD and friends has it over Linux.

I'm totally in love with FreeBSD too, ever since I put it on that old P90 of mine, thats used as firewall, NAT box, dhcp server, ftp server, samba server, time server, you name it. It's been running totally stable, and I've been able to do some crazy tricks with its networking capabilities, stuff that either doesn't work as well in other OSes (i mean... linux' ipchains just doesnt cut it in comparison), or would cost quite a bit (if you went with MS products). Also, the system is running rocksolid, 3-digit uptimes are no problem.

So, as server OS, i give it top grades.

However... as workstation OS... it failed me. I spent 48 hours downloading and compiling stuff like gnome (ok, so maybe i shouldnt have gone with the ports). And in the end, I couldnt get either openoffice nor abiword running; both compiled but wouldnt run.

In comparison, I then wiped the disk and installed redhat linux 7.2 - after 1 hour I was where i was after 48 hours with FreeBSD, except everything worked.

And there's another side - when used as workstation OS, if you're like me you like trying out new software all the time. I soon noticed that most software is available in binary form for various linuxes, but only rarely for FreeBSD. And compiling the source everytime is... not that great.

So, my first choice for anything server or network related is FreeBSD (I haven't tried the other BSDs yet... but OpenBSD keeps popping up in the back of my head...). For my workstation, WinXP is the way to go.

I'm currently using FreeBSD as my workstation. Since I work for an ISP that uses FreeBSD for web servers, I'm doing it more for the experience than because of any inherent advantages the operating system may have. Since I'm using it at work, I don't ask for that much out of the system in terms of software applications or games. All I really need to get my job done is an ssh client and a web browser (although xmms makes things a lot nicer).

Getting the OS installed was simple, but getting X window manager took a bit more work. However, it was far from what I would call excruciating. Once I got it working, it hasn't given me any trouble. On the other hand, I had a miserable experience trying to upgrade my motherboard. FreeBSD doesn't support the hundreds of pieces of hardware that are around. As long as your hardware is fairly generic or already supported, FreeBSD will work fine. If your hardware is anything bleeding-edge or obscure, you may be asking for trouble.

The ports collection Rules the Night. Often, I'll hear about a piece of software, then realize that I already have it waiting to be installed in /usr/ports. It makes installation a piece of cake. The online FreeBSD handbook is also quite nice.

Overall, I'm quite happy with my system. My only caveat is that I don't push it very hard, and I'm not asking a lot out of it. I'm a bit more demanding of my RH 7.0 system I run at home.

My experience with FreeBSD after some time with Slackware/Red Hat/Mandrake is that its structure and script placements has been very consistent as it continues to evolve.

To prove a point, I have an old FreeBSD 2.x book, which to this day I can continue to reference accurately on my FreeBSD 4.4 machine. Talk about book reuse!

It is easier for me to introduce and train the administrators to FreeBSD without them getting confused over where scripts are to be found. We have another product sitting on Red Hat, which as the versions change some 'figuring out' has to be done. Granted it's not too much work on Red Hat. But in a place where time for overheads is at a premium, I appreciate FreeBSD even more.

I have been running FreeBSD for about a year now, and as far as I am concerned it is a great server OS, much better than linux (however I don't have that much experience of linux) but as a workstation I have had no joy, admittedly my GeForce graphics card caused me problems.

FreeBSD (and I presume Net and Open) have a real and crucial advantage over linux in so much as they the development and community are very well structured, I started learning free unix with a couple of linux distro's but the whole community is so chaotic its quite difficult to get an answer if you dont know what you are doing (your mileage may vary) FreeBSD however has the excellent handbook, central development (read centralised answers to problems) and a very easy to use installer and ports tree which really helped me (as a long time Windows user) to transition to the OS.

But X is just awful, when I have had it running it is buggy, and works just plain wierd, I can't say I had too much trouble setting it up, it just didn't work right. I didn't give it much time though as I only really user FreeBSD for server apps.

PS It's nice to see some intelligent OS discussion around this site..

“…but god forbid people actually understand how their operating system works….”

Well, actually most people don’t want to understand that kind of stuff. They just want a system that will do what they need it to and not have to worry about the how’s and why’s of it. They want an OS to be stable and totally compatible with everything else they might want to install or use on a regular basis, without having to worry about compiling source code or configuring a kernel to support new hardware.

This is the very reason why none of the alternative OS’s have taken over the mainstream yet. I find it irritating as well but we have to face the facts. Just talk to any tech support phone jockey and he’ll tell you that your average PC user just isn’t interested in nor prepared for the sort of dedication required to learn how to use *nix systems. Most people don’t even bother to really learn Windows, never mind a CLI based OS with thousands of options hidden away in conf files. People learn what the absolute minimum they need to in order to get it to do what they need, and that’s it. This is why most *nix systems are either used by enthusiasts like us, or installed in an environment with an administrator to set it up and maintain it.

Remember that we live in a world with products like “WebTV.”

your article was a good reading... although it's 2:15am on my clock, it sounded good. great job....

This was truly a good article.
And also kindof funny
Adam seems to be more experienced in the windows field,
but nevertheless he knows his way through a unix installation.
It is a fact that the FreeBSD install is a nightmare, for anyone that has
never seen a unix install. That is undeniable. However first time I installed FreeBSD, the install was very straightforward and simple, because it is also very similar to some linux installs. So far I must say that freebsd installs are the easiest installs I have ever done. But that is when you are already a bit familiar with unix.
Adam, honestly, I never thought you would make it through the install so easily
About the X server. It really is not a pain, but you have to grab your favourite text editor and do it the oldfashioned way after you generated a somewhat decent XF86Config.
Anyway, it's good to see that you share your experiences with "the normal folks".
The problem with linux/unix is that everyone that is using linux/unix, and write docs about it, ... they think in the unix way of thinking.
So if you have to configure a program, just grab your text editor.
It seems very strange to new users, but when you have been using linux/unix for some time, it makes perfectly good sense, and most of the times, editing the config file manually will get you a more decent config, faster than you would do it with a gui.
This interview was very good, because it was explained in a non-technical way.
Also Adam trying to crash the X server
(I've done things like that too in my time)
So, Adam, good review, and keep up the good work.

I emailed the author only to find what I said had already been said, I'll post it anyway. I also use FreeBSD as my desktop and workstation os both at home and at work and LOVE it

Hi Adam,

I just read your article at http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=392&page=6 and wanted to make a few comments.

First I'd like to thank you for taking the time to do some research before writing, it is a amazing how many people do not have the facts and still write about something anyway.

I've been using FreeBSD as my desktop os at home and work for about 3 years now, without windows at all.

There are a couple points I'd like to make:

(1.) FreeBSD does include default install profiles, you can pick whether you want to install just the base os, the x-user (includes all the base programs and also x), developer (base system with source code), or x-developer (base + x + source). As far as individual packages that is left intentionally for you to decide what you want.

(2.) Linux binary compatibility is not the reason FreeBSD is not extinct, in fact it isn't even the reason that it is popular. Most programs that you run on FreeBSD are not Linux binaries, usually they are programs that have been compiled on FreeBSD and run in the native FreeBSD system. The programs that most people think of as "Linux" programs such as bind, apache, perl, etc are not actually "Linux" programs, they are source code compatible Unix programs that will compile on almost every Unix OS and run in their native OS. The only time binary Linux compatibility comes into play is when you are running a pre-compiled Linux binary, usually the only time you would do this is when the source code is not available. VMware, Star Office (Star Office, not OpenOffice), and others are examples.

(3.) FreeBSD does not require partitioning the entire hard disk, FreeBSD is very easy to setup to dual boot between different operating systems, whether it be Linux, Windows, or other Operating Systems. FreeBSD does require a partition yes, but every OS does .

(4.) Linux is not easier to use or install than FreeBSD, you made the point the Linux is fragmented but still recommended installing Linux before FreeBSD. You do need to read the manual before you install FreeBSD but there are a lot of people that go directly from Windows to FreeBSD. The reason is FreeBSD is standard and has a straight forward installer (if you read the manual :-) ).

Oh, you did not mention the upgrade path for FreeBSD either, with FreeBSD you can simply upgrade your system sources, recompile, perform a few other simple steps and reboot and you are running the next version. There is no need to reinstall to upgrade the OS.

All in all I very much enjoyed reading your article, it is one of the best that I have read and I have recommended it to others.

Thank You,

Jason

I appreciate your response. For the most part, the response to my article has been overwhlemingly positive. In truth, if I wrote the article again today, I'd have a few different things to say and I'd also be able to correct some misinformation.

To respond to your inquiries, I am familiar with the install profiles, but I was actually referring to the ports. There should be a simple "workstation" spot to X and you automatically get a host of common desktop apps. Almost all Linux distros have similar options.

The Linux Binary comment was just stupid of me. As a Linux user who was migrating, I didn't understand that most apps are actually running native in FreeBSD. I wish I could retract the statement, that got me more flames than I could've imagined.

The FreeBSD installer is an issue for me. "Desktop OS" implies user friendliness, and I think the installer is weak. Line it up next to the Windows install and tell me how FreeBSD expects people to not judge it. Most of us know better - many don't. I switched "slice" and "partition" in my article.

The upgrade path was unmentioned because I had never upgraded in-place. Hopefully, with 4.5, I will! I believe firmly that FreeBSD has the chance to eventually be the OS of choice in about a decade when Microsoft falls, as all giants eventually do. There are lots of issues - buggy X configuration, installer program, GUI management tools... but it's a solid system that has the capability of beating Linux.

Thanks for taking the time to write to me. Feedback is important.

I have two machines on a KVM, one runs win2k the other FreeBSD 4.2. I only use the win box for M$ Office which hands down, period, smokes all of it's competition. I'd pay 2k for a literal, correct, native FreeBSD port of Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Seriously.

I love FreeBSD and have used it since 2.2.2 so installing it is something I don't even think about when I do it. Therefore it would be difficult (if Possible) to judge a newbies experience of /stand/sysinstall I can't imagine it would be that difficult except for slices and XF86Config. If you have "The Complete FreeBSD" it walks you through step by step of both although IMHO / should be 256 Megs

I can honestly state: "I have never, ever had a FreeBSD -RELEASE- kernel die on me" I have had X crash a thousand times, all the gnome stuff crashes, netscape 4.73 crashes when you breath on it. but not the kernel _Or_the_rest_of
_the_OS_which_Linux_does_not_have_ As a newbie I would think that the most discouraging thing that could happen is having the screen freeze and not be able to do anything about it.

I recently set my 12 Year old daughter up with RedHat 7.1. I "forced" her to use it for 2 months. Just before Christmas she offered to pay for windows out of her allowance if I wouldn't buy it for her. At my work Christmas party she stunned the affair to silence by saying "Linux crashes all the time" when asked what she thought about it. Then she looked at me and said "I'm sorry Dad, It really does" I about died laughing. No it wasn't hardware, it's been running XP since the 26th of Dec.

None of the Nixes are ready for prime time. Those of us that have experience with it take so much for granted that we don't realize how unintuitive the whole mess is. And god forbid they try to upgrade it. Build world is NOT a "one command to reconfigure the entire OS" That statement is a lie and we all know it. On the other hand I love it just the way it is and I bet alot of others do too. The first time I used vi I almost punched the screen of a 20K workstation, now I'd kill anyone that tried to take it from me <grin>

Nix never was meant for Newbies, Although it could be an excellent starting point for one that is. Apple anyone...