I've been perusing the websites and FAQ's but I'm still a little
unclear as to which version is the most suited for a laptop install.

Any opinions?

Dake-Bonoism wrote:
> I've been perusing the websites and FAQ's but I'm still a little
> unclear as to which version is the most suited for a laptop install.
>
> Any opinions?

Not to fan any flames, but based on the intent of the FreeBSD project,
this fork is probably the best for an Intel-based laptop. At least in
terms of all the weird laptop hardware and devices being supported.

A lot of bleeding edge tech is supported on Intel boxes under FreeBSD
and (alternatively) Linux. The focus of OpenBSD and NetBSD might
suggest you might have to do a bit more tweaking to get all the bells
and whistles working.

On 2003-10-21, clvrmnky <clvrmnky@coldmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Dake-Bonoism wrote:
>> I've been perusing the websites and FAQ's but I'm still a little
>> unclear as to which version is the most suited for a laptop install.
>>
>> Any opinions?
>
> Not to fan any flames, but based on the intent of the FreeBSD project,
> this fork is probably the best for an Intel-based laptop. At least in
> terms of all the weird laptop hardware and devices being supported.

Last I heard the FreeBSD 4.x series didn't support CardBus (32bit
pcmcia cards) which could put a bit of a damper on the hardware
support. I can't speak to the availablility of other bells and
whistles though.

> A lot of bleeding edge tech is supported on Intel boxes under FreeBSD
> and (alternatively) Linux. The focus of OpenBSD and NetBSD might
> suggest you might have to do a bit more tweaking to get all the bells
> and whistles working.

It seems to me that NetBSD is often the first to support new
hardware stuff, though I don't know how much tweaking is involved.

--
Stephen Paskaluk

clvrmnky <clvrmnky@coldmail.com.invalid> writes:

> Dake-Bonoism wrote:
>> I've been perusing the websites and FAQ's but I'm still a little
>> unclear as to which version is the most suited for a laptop install.
>> Any opinions?
>
> Not to fan any flames, but based on the intent of the FreeBSD project,
> this fork is probably the best for an Intel-based laptop. At least in
> terms of all the weird laptop hardware and devices being supported.

In my experience, FreeBSD is not suitable for Notebooks. Last time I
tried, it didn't support my cardbus controller (I guess, it didn't
support cardbus at all). And even if it would do so, there where no
support for my NIC/Modem Combo-Card.

NetBSD on the contrary works like a charme with this controller and card
(and even OpenBSD does while it's not supporting the modem part on this
pcmcia-card).

This is quite the same like my overall impression of *BSD. Every time I
tried to install FreeBSD somewhere I got stuck with some hardware issue,
while NetBSD feels quit 'snappy'.

Martin

What is this, another flame "holy war" attempt?

Why the post to alt.religion.dake-bonoism if this is a legitimate question?


"Dake-Bonoism" <dake_bonoism@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:855251a4.0310210614.4ffd4454@posting.google.c om...
> I've been perusing the websites and FAQ's but I'm still a little
> unclear as to which version is the most suited for a laptop install.
>
> Any opinions?
>

Martin Schmitz <martin.schmitz@nexgo.de> writes:
> In my experience, FreeBSD is not suitable for Notebooks. Last time
> I tried, it didn't support my cardbus controller (I guess, it
> didn't support cardbus at all). And even if it would do so, there
> where no support for my NIC/Modem Combo-Card.
[...]

FWIW, CardBus (in general) is available only in the FreeBSD 5.x
tree. Specific hardware may or may not have issues. There is no
CardBus in the FreeBSD 4.x series of releases.

I've used FreeBSD on my Dell using a Xircom Ethernet/modem card (both
parts were supported) that was CardBus. I have little to no
experience with the other two BSDs.

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

In comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc Dake-Bonoism <dake_bonoism@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been perusing the websites and FAQ's but I'm still a little
> unclear as to which version is the most suited for a laptop install.

> Any opinions?

OpenBSD seems to support my SparcBook quite well.

Zane

IBM Thinkpad T40. Everything perfectly up and running including Xmanager.

"Dake-Bonoism" <dake_bonoism@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:855251a4.0310210614.4ffd4454@posting.google.c om...
> I've been perusing the websites and FAQ's but I'm still a little
> unclear as to which version is the most suited for a laptop install.
>
> Any opinions?

IBM ThinkPad T40. Everything works perfectly inculding xmanager.

"Dake-Bonoism" <dake_bonoism@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:855251a4.0310210614.4ffd4454@posting.google.c om...
> I've been perusing the websites and FAQ's but I'm still a little
> unclear as to which version is the most suited for a laptop install.
>
> Any opinions?

He said "what distro" not which laptop.

That being said, I would think any of them would be just fine.


sam wrote:
> IBM ThinkPad T40. Everything works perfectly inculding xmanager.
>
> "Dake-Bonoism" <dake_bonoism@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:855251a4.0310210614.4ffd4454@posting.google.c om...
>
>>I've been perusing the websites and FAQ's but I'm still a little
>>unclear as to which version is the most suited for a laptop install.
>>
>>Any opinions?
>
>