andrewh at jhcs.co.uk
Thu Jun 5 15:06:01 BST 2003
Jon Mercer wrote:
> Two things strike me about that! Firstly, Linux is a pain to administer
> with all these variables, whereas FBSD with the ports collection is an
> administrators dream!
> Secondly, why would companies choose Linux over FBSD with that in mind,
> it's completely counter intuitive IMHO. One factor that strikes me
> relates to a contract I've recently been on, and it's to do with highly
> threaded applications, such as H323 proxies in telecoms. It seems that a
> RH9.0 with a preemptive kernel (2.5.x-one-million) can handle threads
> much better, but I've never seen a comparative with FBSD, only with
> Linux of a lesser version. Comments?
Well, the company I work for do movie standard graphics, and they use
Redhat 7.x because of compatibility with a certain graphics program
called Shake. Also, our render farm runs on Redhat because of software
that was developed by Pixar. So I suppose developers need to turn to
FreeBSD before users (truism alert ;) I'm not sure of the lower-level
benefits of Redhat vs. FreeBSD, but there must be something going on -
or is it just that they got there first?
> >I do see a need to become a little bit more user friendly. But I'd
> >prefer to see a "DeskBSD" fork - some extra install fluffyness that
> >simply sits on top of the bog standard FreeBSD. With out of the box X,
> >all the standard needful apps, and sensible defaults for automating
> >patches and minor updates. Something I'd let the wife loose with
> >And - much as I adore the little Beastie - a less inflammatory mascot.
> >Hmmm, a polar bear perhaps. ;-)
I *do* like the sound of this. And another thing - the name doesn't roll
off the tongue in the same way as just "BSD" would. If they could agree
to it, maybe the desktop fork could be just called BSD?
I also like polar bears! ;)
More information about the Ukfreebsd