Re: SCREEN resolved, thanks guys

2006-11-29 Thread Peter A. Giessel
On 2006/11/29 9:42, Dan Sikorsky seems to have typed:
> Well, between using vidcontrol and watch, (neither i had ever used 
> before) i managed to pull the window, and than like a  fool
> i control - C'd it dooh!
> 
> well, at least now I can start it in screen

You might want to familiarize yourself with the --resume tag in
portmanager  :)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


SCREEN resolved, thanks guys

2006-11-29 Thread Dan Sikorsky
Well, between using vidcontrol and watch, (neither i had ever used 
before) i managed to pull the window, and than like a  fool

i control - C'd it dooh!

well, at least now I can start it in screen

- thanks
--

Dan Sikorsky
*Systems Admin/GoldMine Admin*
RegionalHelpWanted.com,Inc. & Cupid.com, Inc.
845-471-5200 x220
One Civic Center Plaza,
Suite 506
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
/http://RegionalHelpWanted.com
http://Cupid.com/

___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ATA/IDE Controller question (thanks guys)

2003-02-27 Thread Ron Andreasen
Thanks for the input guys.  I haven't been very happy
with my soundcard under windows lately (weird noises
happen at the slightest hard drive activity). 
Although it works great in linux I still might
consider getting an isa soundcard.  I know I'll love
FreeBSD cause I already like linux.  From what I hear
FreeBSD is better than linux ;)


--- Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron,
> 
> I'd recommend replacing your pci modem or sound card
> with an isa device.
> That will clear you a spot. ISA devices are pretty
> darn cheap these days.
> I don't think you will be happy with an isa
> controller.
> I wouldn't even know what to recommend to you for
> isa controller.
> Aaron
> 
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:02 AM
> Subject: ATA/IDE Controller question
> 
> 
> > I just looked at the FreeBSD hardware list and saw
> all
> > those contollers there.  Are any of those ISA
> devices
> > or are they all PCI?
> >
> > I only have 3 PCI slots and they're all being used
> by
> > stuff I can't give up (video card, sound card, and
> > modem).  So if they are all PCI devices will ISA
> > contollers still get the job done?  I'd be using
> it in
> > FreeBSD 5.0.
> >
> > __
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> > http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body
> of the message
> >
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of
> the message


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message


Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Mike Hogsett

I don't think that FreeBSD-Questions is the forum for this discussion.

 - Michael Hogsett

> Erik writes:
> 
> > Have you read any of the license agreements normally
> > accompanying commercial software?  The big companies
> > generally don't guarantee a bloody thing about the
> > software, least of all that it will work correctly.
> 
> Yes, they do, and generally they will support what they sell.  If they
> don't, it soon ceases to sell.  The extensive disclaimers in licensing
> agreements are mainly to protect against liability, not to avoid providing
> support.
> 
> Additionally, many vendors charge for support beyond a certain minimum.
> While this is not included with the original purchase, at least it is
> available--the same cannot be said for most open-source software.
> 
> > Just because you demand it doesn't mean they will
> > even acknowledge that the bug exists, let alone fix it.
> 
> They will, and they do.  Most vendors know who is paying their bills.
> 
> > You can make demands on open source programmers
> > too.  It won't do you any good, but you can do it.
> 
> And that's why open-source software is risky for important applications and
> large organizations.
> 
> > You can't make the big companies fix their software
> > either.
> 
> Yes, you can.  They want your money, and they know they'll stop getting it
> if you are dissatisfied with support.
> 
> > For proof of this consider Microsoft and all the
> > viruses targeting Outlook Express.
> 
> Microsoft didn't write the viruses, and the viruses are not bugs, so I don't
> see the relevance of this comment.
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Anthony Atkielski
Erik writes:

> Have you read any of the license agreements normally
> accompanying commercial software?  The big companies
> generally don't guarantee a bloody thing about the
> software, least of all that it will work correctly.

Yes, they do, and generally they will support what they sell.  If they
don't, it soon ceases to sell.  The extensive disclaimers in licensing
agreements are mainly to protect against liability, not to avoid providing
support.

Additionally, many vendors charge for support beyond a certain minimum.
While this is not included with the original purchase, at least it is
available--the same cannot be said for most open-source software.

> Just because you demand it doesn't mean they will
> even acknowledge that the bug exists, let alone fix it.

They will, and they do.  Most vendors know who is paying their bills.

> You can make demands on open source programmers
> too.  It won't do you any good, but you can do it.

And that's why open-source software is risky for important applications and
large organizations.

> You can't make the big companies fix their software
> either.

Yes, you can.  They want your money, and they know they'll stop getting it
if you are dissatisfied with support.

> For proof of this consider Microsoft and all the
> viruses targeting Outlook Express.

Microsoft didn't write the viruses, and the viruses are not bugs, so I don't
see the relevance of this comment.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Anthony Atkielski
Erik writes:

> You incorrectly assume that all those day jobs
> involve writing software.

I've made no such assumption.

> It is quite possible for a volunteer writing
> open source code to have a day job that does not have
> anything at all to do with computers.

There isn't any part of the economy today that has nothing at all to do with
computers.  With no one making money selling software, there would
definitely be an effect on the economy as a whole.

> You also incorrectly seem to assume that all
> proprietary software is written to be sold
> at retail.

I've made no such assumption.

> You can also consider all the software for
> embedded systems, where the software is not the
> primary product, but some physical device utilising
> the software.

I covered that with mainframes.

> Not necessarily.  You could develop software
> on order for some customer that needs some special
> software that is not available off the shelf.
> Then, after they get the software they wanted
> and you got paid, the source is released.

Except that customers are not too keen on paying you big bucks for software
that you'll be giving away for free to everyone else once it is developed.

> You get paid, your customer got the software
> they wanted, anybody who wants to can get the
> source.  Everybody is happy.

No, the customer is unhappy, because he paid for software that you gave away
to everyone else.

> One kind of software where proprietary off-the=
> shelf software does have a place is software
> that the average open-source programmer finds
> boring ...

And, unfortunately, that covers just about every useful software product in
existence.  Few programmers are chomping at the bit with desire to write
code for the next version of Microsoft Word.

> Examples of this class of software is things
> like spreadsheets, word processors and presentation
> programs.

The programs that get the lion's share of use on most computers, you mean?




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Erik Trulsson
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:49:52PM +0100, Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg wrote:
> Grant Cooper wrote:

> >I've been doing some background reading and correct me if I'm wrong. But I
> >came across of at least 30 active different open source and commercial Unix
> >flavors (and I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket)?
> >
> >And my last comment is about the commercial Unix flavors. If they cost so
> >much - are they more bug free, better support, more people working on it.
> >$12, 000 for a licence is alot of money.
> 
> Basically, what you are paying for is having a big company 
> backing up the product and guarantee you that it will work. I 

Wrong.  Have you read any of the license agreements normally
accompanying commercial software?  The big companies generally don't
guarantee a bloody thing about the software, least of all that it will
work correctly.

> would not say that they are bugfree, but if you find a bug, you 
> can call your vendor and demand that they fix it. If you run a 

Just because you demand it doesn't mean they will even acknowledge that
the bug exists, let alone fix it.

> free OS, you cant make any kind of demands. Most bugs are fixed 

You can make demands on open source programmers too.  It won't do you
any good, but you can do it.

> just as fast or even faster in the free OS's out there, but if 
> they are not, you cant make them fix it.

You can't make the big companies fix their software either.
For proof of this consider Microsoft and all the viruses targeting
Outlook Express.  


-- 

Erik Trulsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Erik Trulsson
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:07:23PM +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote:


> 
> I doubt that.  Open source is written by volunteers who still have to have
> day jobs.  If all software was open source, there'd be no jobs to support
> the volunteers writing open source, and so open source would destroy itself,
> and you'd be back to proprietary software.  This effect will keep open
> source in check.

You incorrectly assume that all those day jobs involve writing
software.  That is not necessarily so.  It is quite possible for a
volunteer writing open source code to have a day job that does not have
anything at all to do with computers.  


You also incorrectly seem to assume that all proprietary software is
written to be sold at retail.  This is not so.  A significant fraction
of the proprietary software written is intended for in-house use.
(Consider for example the computer systems of many government agencies
and large companies and instituitions.  Much of the code in those
systems is developed in-house and never sold.)

You can also consider all the software for embedded systems, where the
software is not the primary product, but some physical device utilising
the software.


> 
> Of course, software companies could write software and then distribute the
> source, but no company that wants to survive can afford to do that--it would
> be giving away its only source of revenue.

Not necessarily.  You could develop software on order for some customer
that needs some special software that is not available off the shelf. 
Then, after they get the software they wanted and you got paid, the
source is released. 
You get paid, your customer got the software they wanted, anybody who
wants to can get the source.  Everybody is happy.


None of the above means that all software necessarily should be open
source, just that your arguments against it doesn't hold.

One kind of software where proprietary off-the-shelf software does have
a place is software that the average open-source programmer finds
boring (since nobody will write boring code without being paid for it)
and where no single entity is prepared to spend a large amount of money
to have it developed, yet there still are many people who need that
kind of software.

Examples of this class of software is things like spreadsheets, word
processors and presentation programs.  There do exist some open source
programs of this kind but they are mostly not quite as good as their
commercial counterparts and there are very volunteers working on them,
yet there are lots of people who need them.


-- 

Erik Trulsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P.
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan Kinkade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: Thanks guys


> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:48:44AM +0100, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:01:08AM -0800, Grant Cooper wrote:
> > > There are so many different types of UNIX. If freeBSD is so
great why won't
> > > natural selection begin and let some of these Unix flavors die?
> > >
> > > Really, wouldn't it be a better world if we had just a couple
open source
> > > OS?
> > >
> > Why ? That's why it's Open-Source, it breaks the monopoly of
closed
> > source. Ok, 20 flavours of Linux and at least 3 of *BSD;
well...that's
> 
> > --
> > Regards
> >Cliff Sarginson
> >The Netherlands
>
> 20 flavours of Linux?  A quick search at http://www.linux.org/dist/
with
> criteria "Any Language", "Any Category" and  "Intel Compatible"
returns
> 149 distros.  Even  moving the Caterory to "Mainstream/General
Public"
> returns 56.
>
> Nathan
>
That's more than I'd care to have in my ice cream shop :-)
Interesting that an additional RPM, moving apache from
usr/local/www to /usr/local/etc/www and changing the
angle of Tux's head contrives to make something "different"
Oh, well. time to move this to -chat?

KDK


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Nathan Kinkade
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 11:48:44AM +0100, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:01:08AM -0800, Grant Cooper wrote:
> > There are so many different types of UNIX. If freeBSD is so great why won't
> > natural selection begin and let some of these Unix flavors die?
> > 
> > Really, wouldn't it be a better world if we had just a couple open source
> > OS?
> > 
> Why ? That's why it's Open-Source, it breaks the monopoly of closed
> source. Ok, 20 flavours of Linux and at least 3 of *BSD; well...that's

> -- 
> Regards
>Cliff Sarginson 
>The Netherlands

20 flavours of Linux?  A quick search at http://www.linux.org/dist/ with
criteria "Any Language", "Any Category" and  "Intel Compatible" returns
149 distros.  Even  moving the Caterory to "Mainstream/General Public"
returns 56.

Nathan

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Anthony Atkielski
Grant writes:

> I like that figure, 7 billion. But let's break
> it down. 6 billion on promotion. $666.666.000
> on production. and 1 million on support.

This is incorrect.  Most of the development cost goes to pay the salaries of
the engineers and programmers writing the product.

Support is the major continuing cost of software for a vendor, but it's not
an up-front cost, whereas the development costs must be paid before the
product even goes out the door.  Very few companies can afford to shell out
several billion dollars to write a new operating system.  Microsoft is one
of the few that can.  Apple could not, so it adapted UNIX instead, although
I predict that OS X will gradually evolve from a UNIX-like operating system
into a fully-proprietary system (because the latter makes more money).

> I have faith that open source will be on top
> in 10 years.

I doubt that.  Open source is written by volunteers who still have to have
day jobs.  If all software was open source, there'd be no jobs to support
the volunteers writing open source, and so open source would destroy itself,
and you'd be back to proprietary software.  This effect will keep open
source in check.

Of course, software companies could write software and then distribute the
source, but no company that wants to survive can afford to do that--it would
be giving away its only source of revenue.

> It's going to be this generation that takes Bill down!!

It's this generation and its successors that will keep Bill rich.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Grant Cooper
I like that figure, 7 billion. But let's break it down. 6 billion on
promotion. $666.666.000 on production. and 1 million on support. $666
dollars and that useless send me that error message (I hate you).

I have faith that open source will be on top in 10 years. Maybe less. 5
years ago most University / College student's didn't really know how to use
the internet. I remember prep classes were full of students for the first
semester. We are lucky if we can fill one class and most of the kids know
more then the instructors. Children who can't even speak are learning to
manipulate the mouse.

It's going to be this generation that takes Bill down!!

- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FreeBSD Questions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:28 AM
Subject: Re: Thanks guys


> Cliff writes:
>
> > Ok, 20 flavours of Linux and at least 3 of
> > *BSD; well...that's the way it goes...
>
> Actually, it's not the number of versions that exist that is important,
it's
> the degree of similarity among them.  Twenty operating systems that are
98%
> compatible is much less of a problem than two operating systems that are
> only 5% compatible.  Something that runs in an X environment on one
version
> of UNIX will often run on several other versions of UNIX as well, but a
> program that runs on Windows will not run at all on the Mac without being
> rewritten.
>
> > All OS'es should be Open-Sourced..especially in these
> > dangerous days !
>
> A nice wish, but developing operating systems costs an incredible amount
of
> money, and the money has to come from somewhere, and the easiest way to
> raise the money is by making the OS proprietary and selling it.
>
> Open operating systems are nice when they exist, but since nobody has the
> resources to support them in a totally reliable and responsive way,
choosing
> them for mission-critical applications is risky, unless one has on-site
> experts to maintain them if required.  For many other purposes, they might
> be quite suitable, however.
>
> In the olden days, mainframe vendors would sell the hardware and almost
> throw in the OS as an afterthought, since the hardware was useless without
> the OS, and since the OS couldn't be used on any other hardware.  They'd
> even provide source code so that customers could modify the OS.  It worked
> well, but that is not a a viable model for smaller systems, because it
makes
> it easy to take a proprietary OS and use it on different but compatible
> hardware (much harder for Macs than for Windows or UNIX, though).  Also,
> customer modifications were a nightmare for support organizations--and
that
> would be a million times worse with smaller systems, given that there are
so
> many people of limited skill and high motivation tweaking so many smaller
> systems.
>
> > Mind you I am not sure how many volunteers there
> > would be who would wish to wade through what is
> > rumoured to be 30 million lines of code that
> > constitute Windows2000.
>
> Exactly.  Writing an OS like that costs several billion dollars, and
> supporting it costs millions more.  How would you find the money for
> open-source code?
>
> Then again, one might argue that 30 million lines is too much for an OS
(and
> I tend to agree), but that's a separate issue.  One nice thing about
> UNIX--in part because of its history, I suppose, and in part because it is
> largely open-source--is that it doesn't suffer from the extreme bloat of
> Windows or Mac operating systems.  This applies only to the OS itself,
> though, not to bloated GUI environments that might run on top of it, which
> seem to have the same problem as Windows and the Mac.
>
> > Well I think it's jolly good as well :)
>
> So do I.  FreeBSD is a great operating system.  Simple, performant,
secure,
> reliable, accessible, and free.
>
> It would be nice to see a desktop OS with the same characteristics one
day,
> but for various reasons, I question whether that will ever even be
possible.
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg
Grant Cooper wrote:

There are so many different types of UNIX. If freeBSD is so great why won't
natural selection begin and let some of these Unix flavors die?

Really, wouldn't it be a better world if we had just a couple open source
OS?


I understand what you mean, but I cant totally agree. The beauty 
of Open Source is that you can modify it as you see fit. If a 
person finds that there is no OS that does exactly what he needs 
it too, he can start with the closest match and modify it untill 
it is what he wants. And behold, a new OS is born. Many of these 
are very targeted at one special task and may not fit the needs 
of the masses, but there are others that fits in a lot of 
different environments doing different tasks, and those are the 
ones that will have a lot of users. Linux and BSD fits well in 
the later group.

I've been doing some background reading and correct me if I'm wrong. But I
came across of at least 30 active different open source and commercial Unix
flavors (and I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket)?

And my last comment is about the commercial Unix flavors. If they cost so
much - are they more bug free, better support, more people working on it.
$12, 000 for a licence is alot of money.


Basically, what you are paying for is having a big company 
backing up the product and guarantee you that it will work. I 
would not say that they are bugfree, but if you find a bug, you 
can call your vendor and demand that they fix it. If you run a 
free OS, you cant make any kind of demands. Most bugs are fixed 
just as fast or even faster in the free OS's out there, but if 
they are not, you cant make them fix it.

Well, I just like to say that I think FreeBSD is great. My first real unix
experience and I couldn't have done it without the support of the FreeBSD
lists and free tutorials.


I totally agree, FreeBSD is a great OS. I find the BSD community 
to be one of the most understanding and newbie friendly out 
there. Of course, there are a*holes in every community, but I 
think the BSD has the lowest a*hole to nice-guy ratio of all the 
communitys I've been involved with.


Grant Cooper,
Thanks freeBSD for the help.


Rocky,
You're welcome :)




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Anthony Atkielski
Cliff writes:

> Ok, 20 flavours of Linux and at least 3 of
> *BSD; well...that's the way it goes...

Actually, it's not the number of versions that exist that is important, it's
the degree of similarity among them.  Twenty operating systems that are 98%
compatible is much less of a problem than two operating systems that are
only 5% compatible.  Something that runs in an X environment on one version
of UNIX will often run on several other versions of UNIX as well, but a
program that runs on Windows will not run at all on the Mac without being
rewritten.

> All OS'es should be Open-Sourced..especially in these
> dangerous days !

A nice wish, but developing operating systems costs an incredible amount of
money, and the money has to come from somewhere, and the easiest way to
raise the money is by making the OS proprietary and selling it.

Open operating systems are nice when they exist, but since nobody has the
resources to support them in a totally reliable and responsive way, choosing
them for mission-critical applications is risky, unless one has on-site
experts to maintain them if required.  For many other purposes, they might
be quite suitable, however.

In the olden days, mainframe vendors would sell the hardware and almost
throw in the OS as an afterthought, since the hardware was useless without
the OS, and since the OS couldn't be used on any other hardware.  They'd
even provide source code so that customers could modify the OS.  It worked
well, but that is not a a viable model for smaller systems, because it makes
it easy to take a proprietary OS and use it on different but compatible
hardware (much harder for Macs than for Windows or UNIX, though).  Also,
customer modifications were a nightmare for support organizations--and that
would be a million times worse with smaller systems, given that there are so
many people of limited skill and high motivation tweaking so many smaller
systems.

> Mind you I am not sure how many volunteers there
> would be who would wish to wade through what is
> rumoured to be 30 million lines of code that
> constitute Windows2000.

Exactly.  Writing an OS like that costs several billion dollars, and
supporting it costs millions more.  How would you find the money for
open-source code?

Then again, one might argue that 30 million lines is too much for an OS (and
I tend to agree), but that's a separate issue.  One nice thing about
UNIX--in part because of its history, I suppose, and in part because it is
largely open-source--is that it doesn't suffer from the extreme bloat of
Windows or Mac operating systems.  This applies only to the OS itself,
though, not to bloated GUI environments that might run on top of it, which
seem to have the same problem as Windows and the Mac.

> Well I think it's jolly good as well :)

So do I.  FreeBSD is a great operating system.  Simple, performant, secure,
reliable, accessible, and free.

It would be nice to see a desktop OS with the same characteristics one day,
but for various reasons, I question whether that will ever even be possible.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Re: Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Cliff Sarginson
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:01:08AM -0800, Grant Cooper wrote:
> There are so many different types of UNIX. If freeBSD is so great why won't
> natural selection begin and let some of these Unix flavors die?
> 
> Really, wouldn't it be a better world if we had just a couple open source
> OS?
> 
Why ? That's why it's Open-Source, it breaks the monopoly of closed
source. Ok, 20 flavours of Linux and at least 3 of *BSD; well...that's
the way it goes...All OS'es should be Open-Sourced..especially in these
dangerous days ! Mind you I am not sure how many volunteers there would
be who would wish to wade through what is rumoured to be 30 million
lines of code that constitute Windows2000.

> I've been doing some background reading and correct me if I'm wrong. But I
> came across of at least 30 active different open source and commercial Unix
> flavors (and I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket)?
> 
> And my last comment is about the commercial Unix flavors. If they cost so
> much - are they more bug free, better support, more people working on it.
> $12, 000 for a licence is alot of money.
> 
Bug-free.. ROFL. Oh No ! HP-UX, Solaris, AIX ... etc. etc. cannot be
described as bug-free my friend. The responsivenes of voluntary effort
to systems like FreeBSD and some (but not all) versions of Linux, would
astonish some IT managers who think if you don't pay it must be
worthless...that is despite FreeBSD's long pedigree and quite well-known
fame for stability.

> Well, I just like to say that I think FreeBSD is great. My first real unix
> experience and I couldn't have done it without the support of the FreeBSD
> lists and free tutorials.

Well I think it's jolly good as well :)

-- 
Regards
   Cliff Sarginson 
   The Netherlands

[ This mail has been checked as virus-free ]

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message



Thanks guys

2002-11-13 Thread Grant Cooper
There are so many different types of UNIX. If freeBSD is so great why won't
natural selection begin and let some of these Unix flavors die?

Really, wouldn't it be a better world if we had just a couple open source
OS?

I've been doing some background reading and correct me if I'm wrong. But I
came across of at least 30 active different open source and commercial Unix
flavors (and I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket)?

And my last comment is about the commercial Unix flavors. If they cost so
much - are they more bug free, better support, more people working on it.
$12, 000 for a licence is alot of money.

Well, I just like to say that I think FreeBSD is great. My first real unix
experience and I couldn't have done it without the support of the FreeBSD
lists and free tutorials.

Grant Cooper,
Thanks freeBSD for the help.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message