Re: http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html

Am Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:34:54 -0400
schrieb Chris Brennan <xaero_at_xaerolimit.net>:

> the object is to show people *WHY* FreeBSD is a sound (and valid)
> choice against the competition, we can't just claim we're better
> because we know we are, we have to provide a convincing argument that
> is true and honest fact.

Hi Chris and all the others,

I want to suggest that you shouldn't compare every single feature about
FreeBSD kernel. You should not also try to lie to people about vendor
support, because it's not worth mentioning, when you compare it to many
Linux distributions. Don't tell people there are games and don't tell
them that FreeBSD can replace Microsoft Windows, please.

I like to advertise FreeBSD, but I try to do it honestly, because it
will send the wrong signals.

You should compare what you can *DO* better with FreeBSD. And one thing
that comes instantly into my mind is the FreeBSD port collection (for
my part). I've tried various Linux distributions for years and there is
no such thing as FreeBSD ports in Linux world (portage comes close, but
it lacks integrity sometimes). And that's why after using other OSes, I
always arrived back on FreeBSD. The effort which is going into ports is
amazing and (for me) the most important part of the OS. FreeBSD is one
of few systems where you can have configurable up-to-date applications
and this is what I need. And this is mostly the reason why I use
FreeBSD.

I suggest that you look at the applications of FreeBSD in the world.
How people use it and why the decided to use it. I heard many people
prefer FreeBSD on web servers (yeah, Netcraft also says so). But why?

You tell me that FreeBSD has the best IPv6 implementation? So what?!
Please tell me what you do with it, when it's "so great".

Jails are nice, yes! There are surely scenarios where jails are needed
above every other concept. Instead of telling people about "lightweight
virtualisation"... tell them what others do with it.

Many people are too dumb to understand technical or abstract concepts.
They need examples to understand the features.

--
Martin