> EO> > Here is his take on it.
 > EO> > FreeBSD is a "professional" OS, with lots of commercial
 > EO> > support, IE: you can
 > EO> > buy service contracts to have someone do your UNIX
 > EO> > support..
 > EO> > support..ce contracts to have someone do your UNIX cial
 > EO> So BSD would be good if you might need serious help with
 > EO> it?
 > That's my understanding, understand that what I'm saying is
 > 2nt. hand info.
Well, I do know that many sites on the internet use BSD.  I know Walnut 
Creek's site (cdrom.com) uses BSD.
 > EO> > RedHat Linux is packaged in a way that makes is easier
 > EO> > for
 > EO> > beginners to learn.
 > EO> > Slackware Linux is a "gurus'" OS, with lots of bells
 > EO> > and
 > EO> > whistles for the
 > EO> > experianced hacker..
 > EO> > experianced hacker.. "gurus'" OS, with lots of bells r
 > EO> That's what I heard.. But still, I've heard that BSD is
 > EO> faster and more stable than Linux. Do you know if that's true?
 > I have no idea.. You might want to check in at the LINUX
 > echo and ask there.
I bet the people in the Linux echo will say Linux is better (hey, it's a 
LINUX echo..)  :)
 > EO> > My son runs Win/95 and Redhat on his system at
 > EO> > College, and
 > EO> > we run Slackware
 > EO> > on my website/ftpsite.
 > EO> > I personally run OS/2 Warp 3 connect, and am about to
 > EO> > upgrade
 > EO> > to Warp 4.
 > EO> > to Warp 4.ly run OS/2 Warp 3 connect, and am about to
 > EO> I have Warp 4. I like it.. Before I had just Warp 3 red
 > EO> (not Connect).  I found that Warp 4 was faster and more stable on my
 > EO> system, and it has some system, and it haswas faster and more stable 
on 
 > EO> my  red 
 > EO> neat stuff, too. I just wish there was more software for
 > EO> it.. One good thing, though, is that there is something coming out
 > EO> that will be able to convert Win32/95/NT programs to OS/2 native (via
 > EO> Open32). It will require you to have Warp 4, but it looks good.. 
 > EO> They've already been able to convert stuff like Quake and a few 
 > EO> ommercial word-processor apps..
 > I'm looking forward to that. Should be interesting.
Yeah..  I've found that in OS/2, though, the DOS caching could be better.  
Some functions on my BBS (like listing the echo areas) take a while under 
OS/2, but under DOS or Win95 it is a lot faster, and it doesn't need to read 
the disk each time you list message areas, like it did in OS/2.  But there 
were other functions that were faster under OS/2..
Eric
---
---------------