keramida at ceid.upatras.gr
Sun Dec 25 13:50:20 PST 2005
On 2005-12-25 06:33, Danial Thom <danial_thom at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at ceid.upatras.gr> wrote:
> > On 2005-12-24 14:01, Danial Thom
> > <danial_thom at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Don Hinton <don.hinton at vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
> > > > For me, FreeBSD is about twice as fast - easy to install -
> > > > configure, and infinitely cheaper.
> > >
> > > Considering that WinXP usually comes on the computer, I don't see
> > > how "installing and configuring FreeBSD" can be easier than having
> > > to do nothing at all?
> > Windows XP comes preinstalled, yes. Not "preconfigured" too. It so
> > happens that configuring a Windows XP system to match one's
> > preferences has the potential to:
> > a) Screw the machine up so completely and utterly that a
> > reinstall is required.
> > b) Take a lot of time. A huge lot of time, because of all the
> > different 'driver' installation processes.
> Ate you claiming that someone not familiar with how to configure
> FreeBSD can't screw it up beyond usefulness?
No, I'm claiming that your Holy Grail of an OS is also flawed, in many
of the ways that FreeBSD may be, in your opinion, flawed too.
Since the original poster has explicitly stated that he is *NOT*
interested in hearing why you think Windows is good for him, can we drop
the subject already?
More information about the freebsd-questions