freeBSD and Linux and windows... how? - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: freeBSD and Linux and windows... how?

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    10
    Sorry this is kind of newbish but what is freeBSD?

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    195
    This will help you more, as I have learnt a lot from here from new user point of view to know what it is all about

    http://www.freebsd.org/
    It\'s all about sense of power.

  3. #23

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    245
    So ambitious!

    Why not slap Solaris 10 x86 on there someplace too...
    Get OpenSolaris http://www.opensolaris.org/

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    508
    Yea... what about slap openbsd and netbsd too http://www.openbsd.org, <a rel="nofo...etbsd.org</a>. BSD family is my fav..
    Not an image or image does not exist!
    Not an image or image does not exist!

  6. #26
    Senior Member IKnowNot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    792
    sweet_angel , and others;
    Yea... what about slap openbsd and netbsd too www.openbsd.org, www.netbsd.org. BSD family is my fav..
    I believe this was for learning purposes of someone who has little or no experience with *nix, just has copies.

    Again, I would suggest a second OS be put on a separate hard drive ( I like making the *nix hard drive the primary; after installing the M$ OS on the primary master, change that drive to a primary slave, make the *nix drive the primary master and boot from that using GRUB or Lilo, which ever is available. This can cause certain problems when attempting to boot into safe mode on the M$ drive, but also somewhat protects the boot sequence from M$ based attacks when using that OS. ) ***

    *** Oh, I just realized, that has never ( AFAIK ) been discussed before here ( or anywhere else. ) Anyone care to comment on this?

    And I would still suggest Linux. Solely because of the available documentation.

    BSDs are nice. Useable, reliable, etc. But as Gore pointed out, not necessarily for the novice. And not ready for the desktop. Better to start with a GUI, learn what they can, learn they can do pretty much the same thing with a little more knowledge from the command line, then start using the system solely from the command line. Then, once they can control the system and do exactly what they want from the command line they can then have an appreciation of a true UNIX system. They can then migrate.

    GUIs are nice for the desktop. No, more then that, they are mandatory.

    GUIs are nice for network management. But here, they are not mandatory, just convenient.

    GUIs are convenient for managing servers, firewalls, etc., but are obstacles for security.

    Every service a network runs places more possibilities for an exploit or vulnerability.

    In the same vain, every service a network perimeter runs also places more possibilities for an exploit or vulnerability.

    My point in the context of this thread? No different then anywhere else. A newbie to *nix has to become acclimated to the Operating system first, then become cognizant of controlling the systems, then of its possible minimalist applications. Learning this the old way, when GUIs didn't exist, took years to master the structures and nuances of an OS. With the advantage today of the GUI, one can learn the structures, then turn to a shell ( even within a GUI ) to learn the nuances. Once learned ( again, I believe Linux is much better documented for this ) can abandon the GUI and control the system completely absent a GUI. At that point, learning a *BSD variant should be no problem.

    Just my thoughts on the matter.
    " And maddest of all, to see life as it is and not as it should be" --Miguel Cervantes

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •