Also, why don't we do these robot things on the moon first before we spend a billion or so going a few miles down the road?
Because unlike Mars, the moon has *no* atmosphere. The flapping wings are meant to make the robot fly in the extremely thin atmosphere of Mars, they are useless on the Moon.
A: FreeBSD is easiest; but easiest means that it's harder to install than most Linux.(Getting packages is easier however!) Best is a matter of opinion.
Q: Which has the best documentation?
A: FreeBSD 4.2 Powerpack included great documentation, a somewhat outdated "FreeBSD Complete" book, but I don't know if FreeBSD is sold in a box anymore; it may be only CDs for recent versions; though you could still buy the books seperately and the FreeBSD handbook is available for free online. Again, there's not as many books as for Linux (understatement); but the book I mentioned is very good.Some but not all of that book and other FreeBSD docs would apply to other BSDs by the way.
Q: Do any of them have compatability with Linux configuration tools?
A: FreeBSD has binary compatability with Linux, maybe so do the others; but I wouldn't run any Linux configuration tools on it if I were you.:-) They don't use the identical configuration syntax and files.If you need GUI configuration utilities you should stick with Linux...*DON'T* run them on BSD.
Q: Which one supports the most x86 hardware?
A: My guess is, again, FreeBSD; but the others probably have similar support; which is to say not as good as Linux but supporting mainstream server hardware. NetBSD has the most portability, it runs on more machines than any BSD, or even possibly any Linux; but that's not what you're asking.:-)
OpenBSD is pretty good, especially with regards to security. However, it's definitely not known as being the easiest or having the most hand-holding of the BSDs, which seems to be (no flame intended) what the questions posted are asking. FreeBSD has the reputation of being the easiest of the BSDs.
If Author C. Clarke had asked the patent office to patent software rather than satelites, perhaps they would have been more ready to give him a patent.They certainly aren't cautious about giving patents to software now!
Another serious setback for Linux is the lack of a journalling file system
Reiser FS, ext3fs, and others are journaling file systems supported by Linux. In fact, recent versions of the standard kernal have built-in support, and many distributions such as at least SuSE and Red Hat currently offer during their set-up process to make one's system use a journaling file system.
FreeBSD's sh is actually ash, which is also not 100% compatable. Incidentally, Linux 0.95's (and if memory serves me correctly 0.99's early patch levels as well) two 5.25" disk boot/root combination used ash as it's shell to save space. "GNU-Linux" wasn't always so bash-centric. (Though it is true that the rest of the utilities were mostly GNU ones.:-) )
Slashdot Mirror
Q: which is easiest?
A: FreeBSD is easiest; but easiest means that it's harder to install than most Linux.(Getting packages is easier however!) Best is a matter of opinion.
Q: Which has the best documentation?
A: FreeBSD 4.2 Powerpack included great documentation, a somewhat outdated "FreeBSD Complete" book, but I don't know if FreeBSD is sold in a box anymore; it may be only CDs for recent versions; though you could still buy the books seperately and the FreeBSD handbook is available for free online. Again, there's not as many books as for Linux (understatement); but the book I mentioned is very good.Some but not all of that book and other FreeBSD docs would apply to other BSDs by the way.
Q: Do any of them have compatability with Linux configuration tools?
A: FreeBSD has binary compatability with Linux, maybe so do the others; but I wouldn't run any Linux configuration tools on it if I were you. :-) They don't use the identical configuration syntax and files.If you need GUI configuration utilities you should stick with Linux...*DON'T* run them on BSD.
Q: Which one supports the most x86 hardware?
A: My guess is, again, FreeBSD; but the others probably have similar support; which is to say not as good as Linux but supporting mainstream server hardware. NetBSD has the most portability, it runs on more machines than any BSD, or even possibly any Linux; but that's not what you're asking. :-)
OpenBSD is pretty good, especially with regards to security. However, it's definitely not known as being the easiest or having the most hand-holding of the BSDs, which seems to be (no flame intended) what the questions posted are asking. FreeBSD has the reputation of being the easiest of the BSDs.
If Author C. Clarke had asked the patent office to patent software rather than satelites, perhaps they would have been more ready to give him a patent.They certainly aren't cautious about giving patents to software now!
FreeBSD's sh is actually ash, which is also not 100% compatable. Incidentally, Linux 0.95's (and if memory serves me correctly 0.99's early patch levels as well) two 5.25" disk boot/root combination used ash as it's shell to save space. "GNU-Linux" wasn't always so bash-centric. (Though it is true that the rest of the utilities were mostly GNU ones. :-) )