I spent the hours after dinner this evening ftp'ing a 500 meg install of FreeBSD-2.2.7. lilo works perfectly triple booting linux, freebsd, and win95 on my box, I was pleasantly surprised. FreeBSD is nice, although it made me realize how pampered we are as S.u.S.E. users. I have a copy of Solaris coming, and in the meantime I will probably try Openbsd and Debian 2.0 after I play with FreeBSD for a few days, and I will eventually get Openstep4.2(I love the NeXT gui), but I just can't imagine a nicer desktop os than S.u.S.E. S.u.S.E. seems _noticeably_ faster on my box as well, but that is a perception, not a benchmark. FreeBSD lovers please withold your flames :) FreeBSD-2.2.7 also comes with gcc-2.7.2.1, so S.u.S.E. aren't the only ones that feel that is the best current choice of compilers. I tried ftp'ing NetBSD first, and while NetBSD had a less cryptic install, it wouldn't detect my ethernet card :( I will say this, the kernel that booted off the NetBSD install floppy I made was WICKED fast. I would like to figure out the ethernet problem and try an install of NetBSD if that is any indication of it's efficiency. Oh, and speaking of installs, appreciate the lengths that the people at S.u.S.E. have gone to reduce the trauma a linux newbie encounters. Go install a free bsd, you'll see what I mean. Anyway, I just thought some of you might find this interesting. It's left me even more curious about trying more of the free, as well as commercial unices out there, and made me even more appreciative of my primary os, S.u.S.E. linux. -- .###. /#######\## -==============================================- ;##### ;# Mike's WindowMaker ;##### ;# <A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html"><A HREF="http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html</A">http://tasteslikechicken.ml.org/windowmaker.html \# /## -==============================================- ###'---'#### - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e