OpenBSD Journal

[ZDNet] Clearing up the confusion

Contributed by Dengue on from the bsd-for-dummies dept.

ZDNet is running an article by Chris Coleman of Daemonnews that tries to provide an answer to "What's the difference between [Net|Free|Open]BSD?". Of course, you know the difference.

One item he mentions that I take issue with is his claim that FreeBSD is "...end-user oriented and easier to install than NetBSD or OpenBSD" . I can only imagine that it's an issue of personal familiarity. I find OpenBSD, NetBSD and Slackware Linux to be very easy to install. Debian, RedHat and FreeBSD all seem to be a real PITA (Debian in particular fails to pass the "WTF is this?" frustration test).

(Comments are closed)

  1. By S. Ligthert () on

    IMHO the artikel doesn't go to deep into the internals of the OS and the methods of development.

  2. By Anonymous Coward () on

    Debian installs may be a little head-scratching if you aren't writing down your partition info as you go, but otherwise I think they're pretty slick - whereas I would have been totally lost installing openbsd 2.7 if I hadn't had the cd's sample script in front of me.


Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]