[rescue] Re: G5 case

[Eric Dittman]

> > Linux isn't UNIX, but in name only.  There's really not
> > much difference between Linux and a real UNIX.
> 
> There's a huge one.  Linux is just a kernel; the userland comes from
> a few hundred different sources, and it shows.  BSD, just like SunOS,
> IRIX, and the other "real Unixes" is a single, coherent product with a
> much more polished feel.  I'm not going to use any distribution based
> around RPM, and both Slackware and Debian lag too far behind the cutting
> edge for me to use the official channels to stay current.

I use Linux in the generic, "piss off RMS", technically
incorrect, reference to Linux distributions.  I didn't
used to do this until RMS brought out the big green
monster and got all pissy instead of doing something
more constructive like taking a bath.

I don't have any problems with RPM-based distributions.
I have used NetBSD and OpenBSD, and they feel clunky to
me, but I prefer SysV, so that's probably why.

Since 7.1, excepting 8.0, RedHat has felt very polished
and integrated to me.

My favorite UNIX distributions are Tru64 and IRIX.
Solaris 8 and 9 are okay, too.

The main elements of the Linux distribution come from
just three places:  Linus, GNU, and XFree86.  The other
stuff is extra add-ons, just like in *BSD.  When I
installed NetBSD 1.6.1 on one of my Alphas, I found
the main elements came from two places:  BSD and
XFree86.  If you need a compiler, then three places:
BSD, XFree86, and GNU.  That's not much difference.

> With *BSD, I do a cvs update, a make world, and reboot.

Then how many GNU tools do you load, like gcc?

In my opinion, there really isn't much difference
between any of the major Linux distributions and
*BSD in philosophy, just in implementation.
-- 
Eric Dittman
dittman at dittman.net