Operating systems

Why the BSDs get no love

The BSDs of the world get no love or respect. Jack Wallen has an idea why, and just how they can fix it.

It was a warm summer night, circa 1996, when I installed my first Linux distribution. I remember it well, the old text-based installation of Caldera Open Linux (and then Red Hat Linux, when Caldera proved to just not work well). The install took some time to get used to, but it worked. I felt at the top of my nerd game, being able to successfully install Linux. And at the time, that feeling was spot on. When Linux first arrived on the "mass-market" scene it wasn't the most user-friendly operating system to install, but when it was installed, it worked like a champ.

But back then there was very little wide-spread usage. Why? Not only was the installation foreign (and none too easy), the whole of the operating system was nothing like the masses had used. For those whose interest was piqued, however, it was the installation that would make or break new users. Even the new Windows 95 had a nice graphical installation. Linux, on the other hand had the old ncurses-based installation method that launched a thousand install fests across the globe (if you never attended an install fest, you don't know what you were missing).

That was then, this is now. Linux now enjoys some of the easiest, cleanest installation routines of any operating system available. Many of the modern distributions are a live CD and a few clicks from going from CD media to your hard disk. But what about the BSDs?

That, my friend is a different story.

Back in the day, I was one with the text-based installation. I could install Red Hat 4.2 in my sleep. Manual partitions? Child's play. There was nothing I couldn't install.

Over the weekend, I installed OpenBSD. And then I installed FreeBSD. And then I quickly realized why the BSDs are getting no love. For some odd reason, the BSDs refuse to join the rest of the modern world. Instead they have decided that they (the BSD communities) are going to rebel and remain in the  90s with the text-based installation and their cryptic install instructions. But then the BSD community complains that they get no love...no press...no user-base. Oh sure, the silver-back geeks and the server farms will run one or more flavors of BSD (it IS insanely stable and secure). More than likely, those are the users that have been running BSD since their days in high-school computer club.

I write these words in hopes that a member of the BSD clan will get word back to their high counsel. If BSD wants to gain any respect among the masses, they have to modernize, join the new world order, and (at the very least) add a GUI installation tool - or, heaven forbid, a Live CD. I did find a Live BSD project that hadn't been updated since 2004. After much digging, I did finally come up with the BSD Anywhere project that attempts to modernize the BSD (OpenBSD at least), but shoots itself in the foot by including only the IceWM window manager with a default configuration that looks, surprisingly, very 90s! Go figure.

Hear me out *BSDs - you need to accept the fact that the PC world has come a long, long way since the 90s. The graphical environment (as shown by the overwhelming ooohs and ahhhs that accompanied Windows 7) can go a long, long way to help the public accept you. No one wants to work on a desktop without smooth, anti-aliased fonts and a color scheme reminiscent of  an old SPARC Station running CDE.

But why is this important? Simple. The BSDs are amazing operating systems. Not only are they, hands-down, some of the most reliable operating systems, they are bastions of security that refuse to be taken down. It's a shame the BSDs have not met more acceptance across the globe. Instead they play second, third, and fourth string to all other operating systems.

So to the BSD community I beg you, make modern your image. Stop playing in your basement laboratory and show the rest of the world how powerful you really are. Just make sure when the masses of the world see you they don't think, "Oh, how outdated is that?" Gain the love you deserve, BSD.

UPDATE: I have to give props to the PC-BSD developers who have managed to create a distribution, based on FreeBSD, that is as easy to install as any Linux distribution. To those other BDSs out there - pay attention else PC-BSD leave you in the dust. Seriously, if you are looking to try a BSD, you can not go wrong with PC-BSD.

Thank you all for pointing this distribution out.

About

Jack Wallen is an award-winning writer for TechRepublic and Linux.com. He’s an avid promoter of open source and the voice of The Android Expert. For more news about Jack Wallen, visit his website getjackd.net.

95 comments
chris.purcell
chris.purcell

So, I'm unsure exactly how much checking you did before writing your article, but I installed PC-BSD on my Lenovo T61 without issue, using the graphical installer. I installed FreeBSD on my workstation at the office using the graphical installer without issue either. @deksar: Don't be a moronic zealot. Unlike you, I encourage people to install operating systems they know nothing about. One of the greatest ways to learn is to do it yourself. I'll help if I can, but I find that a lot of people want to explore a new OS on their own and get comfortable at their pace, not mine.

deksar
deksar

Nobody is obligated to install OpenBSD. First of all, you must know what you're doing. OpenBSD is a very secure and stable Operating System. Probably the most secure one. And its installer is so simple and logic. If you can't even install it, then why the heck you'd need OpenBSD? Get a Linux, buddy. It is free too! Oh yes, it does has a fancy, shiny installer with a great sexy desktop! Oh, there's always a PCBSD!

triclone
triclone

Server use: Excellent. -------- My Desktop user rants: I think that there are several reasons other than just an ugly install. 1) Package sizes are huge if you want to install applications from the internet, so it takes a long time to download. 2) Harware compatibility is limited. It is harder to find hardware drivers from manufacturers. 3)Rock solid, but not a lightweight speeder. 4)Smaller amounts of applications available when compared to Linux, Windows or Mac. 5)Most BSD newer software is not compatible with older versions of the OS. 6)Software installers are not too user friendly.

unixmarcelo
unixmarcelo

You dont read BSD-news! FreeBSD custom release, with GUI XFCE out of the box. GhostBSD ? FreeBSD 8.0 on LiveCD in Ubuntu style with GUI GNOME DesktopBSD - FreeBSD 7.2 on Live CD/DVD with GUI KDE and Graphical Installer PC-BSD - FreeBSD 7.2 / 8.0 with GUI KDE 4.3 and graphical installer and in the future (2/2010) as Live DVD. And when you promote this systems, they are have many acceptance! Marcelo http://epc.freetzi.com http://unixm.freetzi.com

jethro304
jethro304

Pfff... What crawled up Jack's butt? The fact that most BSDs remain so secure, is because of the lack of "bloat". I've spent years in and out of IRC channels, forums, reading man pages/HOWTOs, and believe me, it was all worth it. You either know what you're doing when you install or you don't. If you don't, then you LEARN. I know what it's like to be discouraged, but the last thing we need is a shiny one-click-install-everything that compromises security. As it is now, everybody thinks they're a *NIX expert because they can install most Linux distributions. We should encourage more command-line usage instead of these sissy GUI front-ends that make you feel accomplished. Most BSDs come with documentation that thoroughly explain the installation process. If you're not willing to take the time to read the documentation then maybe you do need some hand holding GUI. That's like my opinion, Man.

portablenuke
portablenuke

X11 based installers can fail since they require video drivers. For example, Anaconda in Fedora 12 needs a nomodeset boot option enabled to launch on certain systems with ATI video cards. The BSDs don't replace their "text based" installers, the ncurses based installers are a type of command line GUI, because they are dead simple, and they work. There is no reason to change something that is dead simple and just works. I don't spend that much time in the installer, so it doesn't matter to me if it's Anaconda or Sysinstall. There are other things the BSD guys can work on, like breaking up locks or optimizing code. Also, the BSDs don't get any love because they don't have corporate backing like Linux. Corporate backing legitimizes Linux for corporations, and the BSDs don't have that. I'd love to deploy BSD servers at work, but we're not going to replace our RHEL servers with any BSD, or anything Free (Debian, Slackware, etc.) for that matter, because we need someone to support them when something goes horribly wrong.

hobby.harold
hobby.harold

Haveing installed a couple of System III on machines. I have to say that the installation of a number of different Linux versions were a lot easier then System III. The only problem i have with FreeBSD is minor but I can live with those problems. Finaly any of the UNIX family do have better security that was built in right from the start. So why not update the Installation process and those things that a single user is going to be using.

chrisreich
chrisreich

Everybody seems to overemphasize the installers. Hey, you only have to install ONCE. After that what really matters is how well the OS helps to get your job done, whatever job it may be, on a regular basis. Installers are not *nearly* as important as usability *after* the installation. Chris Reich; Rochester, New York

noamscai
noamscai

This is an example of a realy fat trolling and of a miserable incompetence, in any case, powered by narcissism, and it should be judged as a terrorist's attack, but the point is that most people who googled here won't read comments, and this guy achieved his aim. Graphical environment is in your cell phone, man! Revenge will follow! Patria o muerte! (c)Lame English Inc.

jamesccc
jamesccc

BSD stands for servers, security and professionals; not a casual user. Please, stop yelling about making BSD more "ubuntu", because it certainly won't happen. You can't make a car out of a tank, my friend. You can - however - take as much as you can [in terms of the code, ideas, etc] from BSD and implement it elsewhere. Don't be an evangelistic evader and please, leave *BSDs alone in peace. I - for example - don't especially want BSD to become more popular. Popularity is what destroyed many good projects. Copy it or leave it alone ...

rcugini
rcugini

PC-BSD is easy to install. I have it running on an ancient Dell with 1.2 gig CPU and 768 megabytes of RAM. This machine originally shipped with Windows 98 and even slower hardware. Usually PC-BSD runs fairly well. The installer was a little bit easier to use then Fedora 11's was when I put that on my laptop. There is also another project called Desktop BSD, but I'm not sure what they have done lately.

victoral
victoral

Well the 'BSD's get a whole lotta' love from any knowledgeable SA/PA/IT person. BSD is NOT Linux, and shouldn't be, it (they) is (are) granular, fully configurable, operating system(s), one of the most stable, debugged, efficient OS's around (let's all say UNIX). If a users cannot perform installation/configuration/management of an OS without using a GUI, then Linux is for them (or Windows?). What the **** is wrong with a command line?

kpyx2709
kpyx2709

I do really love BSD, have u ever try PC-BSD? It was so nice when we see that there was an application which is not secure using portaudit.

jasevv
jasevv

Its true that FreeBSD doesn't have those rich gui's installed by default. But its present in their ports collection. Using add package we can install any desktop environment of our choice. And PC-BSD guys are doing well. I've conducted demonstrating in the college on the pc bsd, and the compiz fusion effects.. pcbsd is amazingly stable. But the Kde is what sucks. May be a gnome option will work. The 64 bit version of fibonacci edition gets stuck all the time when loading the Kde. That's the reason that made me to stop using it. $Jaseem

uruiamme
uruiamme

Ever heard of Darwin? Duh. Talk about love. They gave a little back, but of course it is mostly gone with the wind. Been on FreeBSD for almost 15 years. Who needs more users?

ejv
ejv

Is it just me or is this article (and others on Linux/BSD) just uninformed, misleading and ultimately useless? (or just good for getting a reaction out of people...sorta like the "National Enquirer" of geekdom...or FOX news) The users/coders of BSD don't care much for market share, poularity, or producing an OS for Grandma or impressing "wannabe" geeks. They spend time on issues that concern them; makes sense since they're the ones spending their valuable time and brains working the code. Your definition of "modern" is a glitzy, shiny GUI installer? Is that a joke? Not something related to performance, stability or security? By that definition I guess Win 95 is a modern OS. You state that BSD is "insanely stable and secure" and "amazing operating systems" and "bastions of security that refuse to be taken down" and yet you choose to spread FUD: "BSDs refuse to join the rest of the modern world" "(the BSD communities) ... rebel and remain in the 90s with the text-based installation and their cryptic install instructions" "If BSD wants to gain any respect among the masses, they have to modernize, join the new world order, and (at the very least) add a GUI installation tool" "Just make sure when the masses of the world see you they don?t think, ?Oh, how outdated is that?? "After much digging, I did finally come up with the BSD Anywhere project that attempts to modernize the BSD (OpenBSD at least), but shoots itself in the foot by including only the IceWM window manager with a default configuration that looks, surprisingly, very 90s! Go figure." If you google "bsd live cd", bsdanywhere.org show up on the first page of results. ("After much digging"... gimme a break) If you had spent 5 minutes doing research you would have found PC-BSD. It's been around for years. Some people "rebel" against the "one-size-fits-all", bloated desktop distros. I don't know if you claim to be a OSS advocate but you're not very good at it. Stop spreading FUD and do some research for crying out loud.

russoisraeli
russoisraeli

There are several reasons to that, not just "old 90's GUI". That reason I would say is a minor one. 1) Linux got widespread due to widespread use of the GNU utilities, most of which make UNIX life easy, or easier. *BSD's can use GNU utilities, but NOT by default, and you actually have to specifically install them. Try using BSD sed for instance. You will notice absence of the familiar "-i", and many regex's/sed tricks will not work. Why? Because it's BSD sed, NOT GNU sed. Part of the reason why BSD's are so stable, is that they VERY sceptically accept any changes into their main distribution, until they test/re-test it and certify it as stable. Most GNU's fall under that category. Eventually bash will become the default shell, instead of sh, but not until it's certified stable. 2) Since Linux got widespread use, it also got a lot of publicity online. BSD's never got that. Ever heard of NetBSD? 3) Besides for the GUI, BSD's are not easy to install to a workstation mode. Server mode itself will take one some time, especially if one chooses to compile stuff from ports. Ever tried to compile KDE from scratch? Use PC-BSD for that. BSD's (Free, Open, Net) are not meant to be used in a workstation mode, unless you're proficient with them, have time on your hands, and a fast PC. Also, the author did not mention that PC-BSD is fully based on FreeBSD. It's mostly FreeBSD with stuff built on top for ease of use, so you're not missing out FreeBSD by using it. To finish it off, I have to mention that: a) FreeBSD has THE BEST UNIX installation guide I've seen available on the net for free. Check out their handbook at http://www.freebsd.org. If you're curious, get VirtualBox, and start learning, even if you only found out about UNIX today! b) The Linux distro Gentoo is my favorite linux distro. It does not have any fancy installation GUI either, and it appears to have copied a lot of things from the *BSD's, in a way that it has a minimalist/simplistic approach, and a great package installation system from source. c) Unless you're a UNIX expert, do not try out OpenBSD. You will be very disappointed by the lack of documentation, and available examples online.

lrstang
lrstang

OpenSolaris and Solaris have BSD roots too and are as easy to install as Linux. OpenSolaris utilizes Gnome, so on the surface it looks and acts like Linux, but has the same underlying BSD strengths that you outlined. Of course, many might argue more, but I digress. Ubuntu and OpenSolaris are the only UNIX like OS's I have been able to install on a laptop with no additional tweaks or driver downloads. I believe Linux's popularity is driven by software vendor application support - Linux in general appears to be winning that war despite the inherent strengths of any BSD rooted UNIX distribution. Note, I am not including Mac OSX as part of this discussion. It too has BSD roots and strengths and it is quite happy on desktops and laptops alike - just not traditional PC hardware (without hacks).

cww99
cww99

That's easy, first they have the old aristocratic tendencies that killed commercial UNIX. I could not, for example, contribute. This is part of the cause of their being a little backwards. You just can't be elitist and have the participation that Linux enjoys. And if you have fewer coders, you will have older code.

SmartDumbGuy
SmartDumbGuy

the BSD environment has enhanced the user experience and knowledge with its text based interfaces, if you change that, BSD users will be no different from any Windows user, no in-depth customization etc..

franjo.posta
franjo.posta

I bought my PC to do what I thought I wanted it to do, not what someone else does.

lefty.crupps
lefty.crupps

GNU/Linux has a hard time getting users because its not familiar and there is no marketing behind it, and yet its install base is larger than the BSDs. With GNU/Linux, there is a ton of support on the web, yet people still struggle with the shift in how the whole system works. Even though the BSDs may work similarly, if a person cannot get a grasp of GNU/Linux they're no more likely to get a grasp of BSD.

chad.dailey
chad.dailey

In my experience, without exception, trying to muddle through a BSD install is difficult. That isn't the hard part. The hard part is actually finding a forum that possesses helpful information other than: Go look at $MANPAGE you n00b! The *attitude* of most BSD communities stinks, and for that they will be relegated to their own corner of the world, where they apparently are happy.

m.i.k.e
m.i.k.e

I'm a System V guy myself, and have been since I figured out the differences between SunOS and Solaris. Still though, I recently decided to give FreeBSD a try, but over the course of several weeks, each time I went to the FreeBSD website to download an ISO, the site was having some technical problem that prevented the download. So I went to Ubuntu's website instead, and had an ISO within the hour.

jgmsys@yahoo.com
jgmsys@yahoo.com

.....the fact that its hardware compatibility is pathetic doesn't help either. I've installed it a couple of times, and it just has all sorts of issues with my video cards. I have not had such problems under Linux since 1995! BSD, get with the program, or fade away. But then again, if it is actually intended to be a server-oriented OS, maybe vast hardware compatibility is not necessary, since few servers need to run high-performance video cards. In that sense, BSD is akin to Solaris, which, although it supports my video, does not recognize my sound hardware or my NIC (major problem there!). All reasons why I'll take Linux over either any day.

granholmk
granholmk

I would just on in an instant if they made the install easier and and less cryptic. As well as the apps. I would trade in Windows for a stable secure system that did not need a dozen patches released before the products was even a week old.

R1scFactor
R1scFactor

I think Mac OS X is one of the best BSD implementations around. Apple rolled the ease of use and BSD core together is a usually very simple installation. As long as people can get the computer to boot from the CD/DVD, almost anyone who can read can get it installed. As a tech person, I both use and insist on BSD in the majority of my custom security "appliances". Some installation agony is just worth the end result trusted security. As for the desktop / workstation, even I agree that pre-packaged BSD distributions generally lack appeal. I need functional, but my workload needs to flow between tasks, not shudder and twitch from not memorizing every flag for a given terminal command. If we look at the word "Terminal", I think of "dying" or "last resort", and that's exactly where a raw command line "Terminal" exists... Dead or as a rare, back-end configuration tool; not the primary function. If we were meant to use a command line for the majority of our tasks, most of the world would still be choosing DOS / MSDOS / Pro-DOS / etc. I'm still looking for a different bridge between Windows, Mac, and Linux. There's WINE (or CrossOver suite if you need WINE simplified) to run Windows applications on Mac or Linux. Where's the WINE equivalent to run Mac software on Linux or Mac? Where's the WINE equivalent to run native Linux applications (installing from RPM, etc. if possible) on Mac or Windows, without specially recompiling for them?

Kris.J
Kris.J

I use many FreeBSD servers. I don't need GUIs, and I don't care who "accepts BSD" or doesn't. FreeBSD is what Linux wants to be when it grows up. Linux is grown, FreeBSD is engineered. Linux is chaos, FreeBSD is order. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: FreeBSD is a server OS, an OS for getting server work done - if you want a desktop OS, choose Windows 7 or Ubuntu, or buy a Mac.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

That seems completely opposite to most people's experience with a BSD given DesktopBSD or FreeBSD. Does your Ports tree have pretty much everything that one would find with the average Linux distro?

jeslurkin
jeslurkin

MS is so easy to screw to the point of needing a re-install,... 'we' have gotten used to it. Now, most people think that _any_ OS needs frequent re-installation. Ergo: 'We _need_ an easy installer'. I am almost surprised that Jack fell into this mindset. Actually, I find that Winders can be set up to be more reliable,... just don't expect any help from MS or 'conventional wisdomeers' on the point.

noamscai
noamscai

heart in fire, head in swamp.. well, anyway, append my buzzy comment to your honourable profile.

kama410
kama410

You're right. It really does sound like trolling. Do these guys get paid on page hits/comments??? /OT In any case, I'd have to guess that anyone installing *BSD is experienced enough to not care if the installer is GUI, and is likely to prefer the text-menu system, anyway. I know I do.

gchudyk
gchudyk

I responded to one of the emails in this article and felt like a fool right after I pressed submit. Then I checked back and read your post and I agreed completely. Now here I am posting again. I am such a fool. Soooo....when do I get the Ginsu knife set.

jeslurkin
jeslurkin

he got the BSDers to come out of the woodwork! :)

DanLM
DanLM

God, I hate wikipedia. But this isn't a bad write up. Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD, sometimes called Berkeley Unix) is the UNIX operating system derivative developed and distributed by the Computer Systems Research Group of the University of California, Berkeley, from 1977 to 1995. Historically, BSD has been considered a branch of UNIX ? "BSD UNIX", because it shared the initial codebase and design with the original AT&T UNIX operating system. In the 1980s, BSD was widely adopted by vendors of workstation-class systems in the form of proprietary UNIX variants such as DEC ULTRIX and Sun Microsystems SunOS. This can be attributed to the ease with which it could be licensed, and the familiarity it found among the founders of many technology companies of this era. Though these commercial BSD derivatives were largely superseded by the UNIX System V Release 4 and OSF/1 systems in the 1990s (both of which incorporated BSD code), later BSD releases provided a basis for several open source development projects which continue to this day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution To me, it's a flavor of unix driven from the origional code of AT&T. Which developed the origioanl unix. When people talk open source, there is no more true open source per it's license then BSD. Lynix is a want to be open source, BSD gives it to you and tells you to do what ever you want. And they put that same sentiment in writting. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

gchudyk
gchudyk

I can only speak to OpenBSd. Their man pages are amazing, current and accurate. Their FAQ covers most of the n00b ground. Their developers are really busy writing and using the code in large production environments. When someone fails to check the web site, read the man pages and check the faq or newsgroup, the developers get angry. Who can blame them. People ask the same question repeatedly and fail to really listen to the answer. Then they hear someone say "why can't you be more like windows/linux/apple?" But, when someone reads all of the available information, provides a coherent statement of the problem, and shows some effort in solving the problem, the developers drop whatever (paid work) they are doing and try to help. They are even happy when a company (Apple/Microsoft/etc.) lift their code and include it in paid product. Their response: "Better they use our code then trying to write their own". I chuckle every time I read that. It's so true.

techrepublic@
techrepublic@

"FreeBSD is what Linux wants to be when it grows up." is what FreeBSD likes to think! :-D I have used both GNU/Linux and FreeBSD extensively in servers for more than a decade and they are very close both in terms of stability and security. I can't remember the last time any of them has crashed on a production machine or any of them was compromised at the root level. In terms of performance GNU/Linux has had the advantage but FreeBSD is closing in (the race continues). In terms of features, it depends on what your needs are but, for me GNU/Linux has the lead most of the time. For Desktops, any of the main GNU/Linux distros beats PC-BSD very easily.

jlwallen
jlwallen

Even Windows Server OSs are easy to install. Could that be a reason why Windows Server OS is so prevalent?

docsteely
docsteely

Could not have said it any better! And I use (and love) OpenBSD.

cww99
cww99

But then you need a lot of coders and a lot of testers :^) But, I don't disagree, generally, in this context, popularity is the measure. I personally don't run the latest and greatest for that reason. Floobydust is simply not as important as stability, _except_ for attracting new users. BSD was and is a great gift to the world. I simply am more philosophically aligned with Linux and the GPL than BSD and it's licensing.

DanLM
DanLM

Why the server has to be rebooted as often as it does and is not considered as stable? It is loaded with gui interfaces that are not needed for server work. The true beautify of FreeBSD is it's solid because it's code base is solid and does not contain anything you do not need. You ADD the things you need after you have done your install. That includes a gui interface. I don't want a gui interface on my server. BUT, I want mysql, perl, apache, php, samba, and other SERVER daemons. I WANT all the power of the machine I am runnig these daemons concentrated on the daemons and not a gui interface. I want all new code being concentrated on making the core code base secure and fast. NOT PRETTY.

allegrotechies
allegrotechies

The two previous post illustrates well why BSD doesn't go 'modern'. Many of their user have the attitude that they don't need to change and if other users need a GUI then that user is unworthy of running BSD. Lynx browser anyone? ;-)

DanLM
DanLM

I am 50 years old, and worked on main frames the first 20 years of my IT work life. Command life is/was second nature for me. Hell, I use it in windows for crying out loud. Desktop, I'm a windows user. I bitch, I moan, I compalin. But I doubt I will ever move off windows. But when it comes to a server enviroment, which I beleive is what BSD is all about. I don't want the overhead or the extra code that has to be tested for security holes. Simple example how much overhead a gui really is. Windows, ftp. Choose your gui FTP client. Take a 500 meg file. Transfer it using the gui client. Then transfer it with command line. Notice the huge difference. peace.

kama410
kama410

"Many of their user have the attitude that they don't need to change and if other users need a GUI then that user is unworthy of running BSD." I don't expect that it has ever occurred to you that there are people in the world who actually prefer a command line/console environment to a GUI? Personally I think they both have certain advantages, but I would rather just type in a quick command rather than navigate through several levels of menus to find the app that I know the name of already. Of course there is also information that is much more easily understood in a visual presentation. A standardized graphical environment makes coding that sort of thing much simpler. I don't recall anything on any of the *BSD pages suggesting that anyone who prefers a GUI should go look elsewhere for their operating system. Like maybe the Fisher-Price website. Honestly I can't understand what the fuss is about. I've seen a lot more user-unfriendly installations than FreeBSD's. I found it to be quite refreshing as compared to The Complete Idiots Guide to OS installation installs that are so common now. I actually got to do things in the way I wanted to instead of the way someone with no idea of my requirements thought would be best for me.

allegrotechies
allegrotechies

I know you wrote english there, but what does your cryptic reply mean?

dalecosp
dalecosp

... with my helping of FUD, plz.

Editor's Picks