Ubuntu vs. Apple [WAS: Re: Novel and Microsoft]

[Jeremy C. Reed]

> > With your line of reasoning: If you can get OpenBSD to run, why the  
> > hell would you run linux?

I think he was referring to previous comment about if someone could 
configure Linux well then why use Mac OS X and not implying that Mac OS X 
was OpenBSD at all. He was just taking a step towards an even more 
difficult system to setup. (I guess like saying: if you can get LFS setup 
and maintained as your desktop, why run Ubuntu?)

> Perhaps you are confused...Macs are not OpenBSD - Macs use FreeBSD

And Mac OS X uses some OpenBSD components too. Either way, it is a small 
percentage. And because of so many differences, it is hard to consider it 
as a real *BSD.

> Assuming that you meant Macintosh and FreeBSD, I believe the reasons
> would be...
> 
> - support OSS
> - don't support proprietary software vendors
> - don't have to pony up annualized upgrade fees to company
> - don't genuflect for DRM
> - no 'mystery code'
> - no single point reliance for updates/upgrades/bugfixes/security
> updates
> - no reliance upon proprietary disk repair/privilege tools
> - consistent POSIX attributes throughout file system and all software