FreeBSD vs Linux

[Andrew L. Gould]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:57:04 -0700
"Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad at shire.net> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 17, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Danial Thom wrote:
> 
> > No, thats ridiculous. Linux has multiple
> > distributions that use the same kernel. The fact
> > that freebsd only has one distribution doesn't
> > make it any more complete.
> 
> Actually it is spot on.   Linux is a kernel.   The various  
> distributions add a ueserland and tools to it but if you go look at  
> the actual definition of Linux you will find it is just a kernel.
> 
> Chad
> ---
> Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
> Your Web App and Email hosting provider
> chad at shire.net

I think the kernel vs OS difference is very important.  "Linux" has a
reputation of being very stable.  If you survey the many (many, many)
Linux distributions, however, I don't think you can justify one
reputation for all of them.  Advising someone to switch to "Linux" is
dangerous because the advice is horribly incomplete.  The advice needs
to include information about specific distributions.  Linux
distributions can differ significantly.  At this point, the decision
process becomes much more complicated.  This also explains why
experienced Linux users are tired of hearing newbies ask "Which Linux
is best? Which distribution should I use?"

I enjoyed my time using Linux.  There are still days when I miss
Caldera's eDesktop 2.4. (What other OS let you play pacman _during_ the
OS installation?!)  I still try Linux distros every now and then for
driver support; but greener grass seems to come with taller weeds.

Andrew Gould