I'll tell you the number one thing right off that I like better about BSD than Linux: the peace and quiet.
An amazing experience occurred when I began to run BSD. It was a Jedi event. I was jolted by something that suddenly stopped when I started BSD, something I hadn't been aware of until it was gone. I experienced a great calming in The Force; as if a million screaming, bitching voices suddenly shut the hell up!
Here is the story of two free Unix systems. BSD, at this time, is about twice Linux's age. Many of the same programs will run on both. Much of the same kind of person who likes one should like the other. Yet on Linux's side of the fence, there is this massive war going on; while on BSD's side, you can step out on your porch at night and hear nothing but crickets.
Nobody is preaching that BSD has to do this, this, and this to suit some agenda.
Nobody is threatening to tar and feather the BSD users for being elitists.
Microsoft isn't shaking any clubs at BSD and threatening to sue it for millions of patent violations.
Nobody is snapping up BSD distros in patent-protection racket deals.
Pundits are not shrieking about what BSD has to do to "make it on the desktop".
Nobody's threatening to blackball me out of the community if I don't give them all my money to advertise BSD with.
Nobody's gaming Distrowatch to try to get BSD distro A ranked above BSD distro B.
Nobody is wringing their hands about how to dumb BSD down, make it suitable for idiots, or turn it into I-Cant-Believe-Its-Not-Windows.
SCO isn't suing over BSD.
Amazing, isn't it?
This is not to say that BSD is without its strife. Even from reading the /usr/share/doc/ section of the FreeBSD install, I can find references to heated battles and controversies going way back. But most of it's internal, and revolves around shaping and building the best operating system they can produce.
Oh, yes... one more thing. There was USL vs BSDi back in 1992, a lawsuit remarkably similar to this decade's SCO vs Linux. That Wiki link says that the lawsuit slowed BSD development for a while, and:
"Linux and 386BSD began development at about the same time, and Linus Torvalds has said that if 386BSD had been available at the time, he would probably not have created Linux."
Now, had the SCO vs Linux lawsuit gone the way it was intended, would another developer have likewise emerged from the wings with his or her own free operating system? Are there alternate universes where Torvalds and Stallman simply joined the core BSD team?
Which kind of explains a little bit of the animosity towards Linux present in the BSD community. What animosity is that? Hey, images like this, this, and this don't draw themselves!
A lot more of the animosity is easier to explain, but harder for some of us to see. Many of the BSD tribe view the Linux tribe as teeth-grittingly irritating. That's all, just plain unruly, rowdy neighbors. With all the whooping and screaming from the Linux side of the fence, it is little wonder why.
24 feedbacks
Comments:
Comment from:
Spinlock [Visitor]
· http://www.slaxer.com
At the moment, SCO isn't suing over Linux anymore, either. ;)
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@Travis
"the thought of the text mode sets my nerves on end."
Then you are afraid of the wrong thing. What you probably don't like is being expected to know how many Megabytes of swap you'll need and how to set a partition by hand and whether you'll need compilers for source installs. You could do all that from a GUI, or you could make a text install be all yes/no questions like Damn Small Linux is.
For BSD, I'm hearing a lot of recommendations for PC-BSD, which seems to be becoming the "Ubuntu of BSDs". For Linux, in addition to the Ubuntu and Fedora you're familiar with, there's Mandriva and Knoppix which are both beginner-friendly, and yet have very large installs which are almost guaranteed to have everything you need.
Truly (and I know I'm going to get beaned for this), to the basic user, there is little-to-no difference between BSD and Linux. What you use is the desktop. The desktop (for basic users) is KDE or Gnome, Firefox, OpenOffice, and one or two other apps. And they all run equally on BSD, Linux, Solaris, and even other systems.
For example, there's the OliveBSD live CD. If you set it up for a Linux user and let them run, it would be a while before they'd even notice the difference.
I'm still kind of exploring BSD, so I'll keep my fingers crossed and say that the one-piece philosophy is about how BSD maintains their own version of the core utilities - the kind of stuff you'd see from the console - whereas Linux uses the GNU core utilities.
"the thought of the text mode sets my nerves on end."
Then you are afraid of the wrong thing. What you probably don't like is being expected to know how many Megabytes of swap you'll need and how to set a partition by hand and whether you'll need compilers for source installs. You could do all that from a GUI, or you could make a text install be all yes/no questions like Damn Small Linux is.
For BSD, I'm hearing a lot of recommendations for PC-BSD, which seems to be becoming the "Ubuntu of BSDs". For Linux, in addition to the Ubuntu and Fedora you're familiar with, there's Mandriva and Knoppix which are both beginner-friendly, and yet have very large installs which are almost guaranteed to have everything you need.
Truly (and I know I'm going to get beaned for this), to the basic user, there is little-to-no difference between BSD and Linux. What you use is the desktop. The desktop (for basic users) is KDE or Gnome, Firefox, OpenOffice, and one or two other apps. And they all run equally on BSD, Linux, Solaris, and even other systems.
For example, there's the OliveBSD live CD. If you set it up for a Linux user and let them run, it would be a while before they'd even notice the difference.
I'm still kind of exploring BSD, so I'll keep my fingers crossed and say that the one-piece philosophy is about how BSD maintains their own version of the core utilities - the kind of stuff you'd see from the console - whereas Linux uses the GNU core utilities.
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@Spinlock
I thought they were appealing or continuing or refiling or something? There's still developments trickling through on Groklaw.
legal stuff... ugh!
I thought they were appealing or continuing or refiling or something? There's still developments trickling through on Groklaw.
legal stuff... ugh!
Comment from:
tumb [Visitor]
"Microsoft isn't shaking any clubs at BSD and threatening to sue it for millions of patent violations."
Get it right, its 235. Not millions. As well, none of the alleged patent violations have been clearly identified by MS or validated in court.
It's because with BSD license, MS (like Apple) can take the code, use it at their will, and give you little or nothing back. And you can't do jack about it. ie: They profit from YOUR work.
Its equivalent to allowing them to take your wife or girlfriend and have their way with her. Once they're done with her, they'll sell her body for profit. (This is Microsoft thinking and its fact).
MS is waving that FUD patent club around because they want opensource destroyed. It stands in their way.
If they can clobber the GPL, its a cancer to them. BSD license, by comparison, is a walkover.
The only thing I like about BSD is their uncompromising beliefs and their anal retentive behaviour when it comes to their code.
Get it right, its 235. Not millions. As well, none of the alleged patent violations have been clearly identified by MS or validated in court.
It's because with BSD license, MS (like Apple) can take the code, use it at their will, and give you little or nothing back. And you can't do jack about it. ie: They profit from YOUR work.
Its equivalent to allowing them to take your wife or girlfriend and have their way with her. Once they're done with her, they'll sell her body for profit. (This is Microsoft thinking and its fact).
MS is waving that FUD patent club around because they want opensource destroyed. It stands in their way.
If they can clobber the GPL, its a cancer to them. BSD license, by comparison, is a walkover.
The only thing I like about BSD is their uncompromising beliefs and their anal retentive behaviour when it comes to their code.
Comment from:
Travis [Visitor]
Ok thank you...tonight my OpenSUSE install is taking forever and if it doesn't click with me then I'll probably retry fedora- but what about the repositories, was I doing something wrong? In GNOME, under applications there is add/remove software. Something simalar(to me at anyrate) comes up in Ubuntu, would this be the repositores? I looked online for VLC and their site sent me to to some collection of repositories which I downloaded some .rpm file yet got nowhere. Said there was no package to be selected for install- yet I don't remember even selecting anything for install in the first place. Could someone be kind enough to tag the main differences between GNOME and KDE? After looking on Wikipedia I get the sense that GNOME is made more for simplicity and people just starting out? Thanks for the help so far(off to check install progress...20 minutes left oh joy).
Is openSUSE the best for general home/college desktop use? Might get into coding at somepoint.
Travis
Is openSUSE the best for general home/college desktop use? Might get into coding at somepoint.
Travis
Comment from:
Travis [Visitor]
UPDATE I GOT GRUB ERROR 21..and this after 2 + hours of install time, so I'm going to go back to Fedora 7 the new version comes out near a month anyway... thanks for the help folks
and if anyone wants to point me more specifically with email or instant messaging, so I don't fill Penguin Pete's comment section up with help threads then thats cool as well.
Travis
and if anyone wants to point me more specifically with email or instant messaging, so I don't fill Penguin Pete's comment section up with help threads then thats cool as well.
Travis
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@Travis
No problem, I like to do what I can. But if you glance over to the sidebar, there's a section on "Linux help"... may I recommend www.linuxquestions.org ? Just the place to get piles of peer help, and they're friendly to BSD, too.
No problem, I like to do what I can. But if you glance over to the sidebar, there's a section on "Linux help"... may I recommend www.linuxquestions.org ? Just the place to get piles of peer help, and they're friendly to BSD, too.
Comment from:
Travis [Visitor]
I think I've figure out my "problem"
Fedora for me is too unweildy and clunky, where as ubuntu well it works good...but i don't know how it works. Does that make sense? If I could get Ubuntu to have root and be able to take out all the stuff..I try to delete the games but it says it would break dependency "ubuntu Desktop" If I delete the games would I still have a working GUI? several other defualt progrmas I don't want...Ubuntu comes with too many apps. Though If Fedora had the bits where it auto gives me Mp3 Support. and movie files it would be a bit better. Hopefully the next two releases of Ubuntu and Fedora can help me. Or make Fedora quicker and give me VLC :)
I'm excited I was able to pin down my problem. Would anyone have a good distro to recommend based of my outline?
Trav
Fedora for me is too unweildy and clunky, where as ubuntu well it works good...but i don't know how it works. Does that make sense? If I could get Ubuntu to have root and be able to take out all the stuff..I try to delete the games but it says it would break dependency "ubuntu Desktop" If I delete the games would I still have a working GUI? several other defualt progrmas I don't want...Ubuntu comes with too many apps. Though If Fedora had the bits where it auto gives me Mp3 Support. and movie files it would be a bit better. Hopefully the next two releases of Ubuntu and Fedora can help me. Or make Fedora quicker and give me VLC :)
I'm excited I was able to pin down my problem. Would anyone have a good distro to recommend based of my outline?
Trav
Comment from:
lefty.crupps [Visitor]
· http://gnuski.blogspot,com
Trav-
I've not used BSD, but in my five years of Linux, the best system overall, I feel, is Debian. I use Kubuntu at home (KDE rocks) just because its easy to install and use, and I have enough disk space that removing a game makes little sense to me. But Kubuntu is based on Debian's tools and packages (sorta), and if you really want a stable and easy-to-customize system, Debian is it.
Download the small "net install" CD and boot into it. Install Debian and chose the base system; if you pick Desktop you'll have Gnome, or you can install KDE later. Once installed, edit the file /etc/apt/sources.list and remove the line which mentions the CD-ROM, and add in a multimedia repository (found on the Mirrors link here http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ ). Then at the command line, run (as root):
apt-get update
apt-get install kde-base xorg
That will give you the most basic system which really needs a lot of other tweeks (like multimedia softwares), but it'll be a learning experience. Or, try SimplyMEPIS, which is based on Debian but is more complete. Or LinuxMint KCE. Or or or... lots of options, as you can see!
Thats the point. We can go on for hours about the best distro, but each user has their own needs and their own comfort level for installing apps. Testing them is really the best option...
and removing *-desktop in *buntu will remove your graphical abilities, yes.
I've not used BSD, but in my five years of Linux, the best system overall, I feel, is Debian. I use Kubuntu at home (KDE rocks) just because its easy to install and use, and I have enough disk space that removing a game makes little sense to me. But Kubuntu is based on Debian's tools and packages (sorta), and if you really want a stable and easy-to-customize system, Debian is it.
Download the small "net install" CD and boot into it. Install Debian and chose the base system; if you pick Desktop you'll have Gnome, or you can install KDE later. Once installed, edit the file /etc/apt/sources.list and remove the line which mentions the CD-ROM, and add in a multimedia repository (found on the Mirrors link here http://www.debian-multimedia.org/ ). Then at the command line, run (as root):
apt-get update
apt-get install kde-base xorg
That will give you the most basic system which really needs a lot of other tweeks (like multimedia softwares), but it'll be a learning experience. Or, try SimplyMEPIS, which is based on Debian but is more complete. Or LinuxMint KCE. Or or or... lots of options, as you can see!
Thats the point. We can go on for hours about the best distro, but each user has their own needs and their own comfort level for installing apps. Testing them is really the best option...
and removing *-desktop in *buntu will remove your graphical abilities, yes.
Comment from:
Travis [Visitor]
Ok that was what I was afraid of. In the package management I wanted to remove a game and it said it would remove all the games, no go there. I'll try debian, since its a bother to update distros every 6 months, but I guess that thats what most want now a days.
Ok looking at this Debian package site I clicked on mirrors and a whole list of boxes with architectures came up..which one shoudl I try.. I feel I want to know what to do so I don't go off half cocked and screw the system up.
AIM: tmoneyt2006
MSN: vestwearinngpunk(at)gmail(dot)com
if anyone wants to help sort this out?
Trav
Ok looking at this Debian package site I clicked on mirrors and a whole list of boxes with architectures came up..which one shoudl I try.. I feel I want to know what to do so I don't go off half cocked and screw the system up.
AIM: tmoneyt2006
MSN: vestwearinngpunk(at)gmail(dot)com
if anyone wants to help sort this out?
Trav
Comment from:
Oko [Visitor]
@: Penguin Pete wrote Truly (and I know I'm going to get beaned for this), to the basic user, there is little-to-no difference between BSD and Linux. What you use is the desktop. The desktop (for basic users) is KDE or Gnome, Firefox, OpenOffice, and one or two other apps. And they all run equally on BSD, Linux, Solaris, and even other systems.
For example, there's the OliveBSD live CD. If you set it up for a Linux user and let them run, it would be a while before they'd even notice the difference.
Why do you think you are going to be beaned for this? That is absolutely correct statement. This is coming from FreeBSD side as I am running 2 FreeBSD boxes and one OpenBSD box. (I also have Ubuntu desktop at my work).
The real difference is what is under the hood.
Even that is most of the time really irrelevant for the light Destkop user.
To notice anything different you will have to try to serve 1Tb of data or to have your server attached.
Than you will know why people on BSD side are so calm.
Speaking of live BSD CD best known is
FreeSBIE (Italian) there is also RuFreeSBI with the installer (Romanian version of FreeSBIE)
There was also some Brazilian project and there was something called Frenzy I think. Right now is somewhat stale.
@Travis
The closes that comes to idiot proof in BSD world is PC-BSD but even than you will certainly have to get into the shell almost as soon as you finish basic install.
You are far better of with Linux for the light Desktop use if you do not want to use your brain cells.
For example, there's the OliveBSD live CD. If you set it up for a Linux user and let them run, it would be a while before they'd even notice the difference.
Why do you think you are going to be beaned for this? That is absolutely correct statement. This is coming from FreeBSD side as I am running 2 FreeBSD boxes and one OpenBSD box. (I also have Ubuntu desktop at my work).
The real difference is what is under the hood.
Even that is most of the time really irrelevant for the light Destkop user.
To notice anything different you will have to try to serve 1Tb of data or to have your server attached.
Than you will know why people on BSD side are so calm.
Speaking of live BSD CD best known is
FreeSBIE (Italian) there is also RuFreeSBI with the installer (Romanian version of FreeSBIE)
There was also some Brazilian project and there was something called Frenzy I think. Right now is somewhat stale.
@Travis
The closes that comes to idiot proof in BSD world is PC-BSD but even than you will certainly have to get into the shell almost as soon as you finish basic install.
You are far better of with Linux for the light Desktop use if you do not want to use your brain cells.
Comment from:
rcjhawk [Visitor]
· http://hawknotes.blogspot.com/
I've used a wide variety of *nix systems in my day, from System V to BSD to all sorts of Linuxes (Linuxi?). Pete's right, once I got X11 running, they all pretty much look the same.
In the little I've studied the matter, I've come to believe that the difference is one of philosophy, and it's mostly centered around the licenses. As tumb said, the BSD license allows anyone to take your work, mug it, cut it up into little tiny bits, add enhancements, and sell the enhancements for profit, giving the original author nothing. The GPL, on the other hand, requires that anyone who does all that has to furnish all of the source code, including the profit-making part, on request, to whoever asks for it. BSD people see the GPL as a restriction on their freedom. I see it as giving the author the right to distribute his code any way he $&#*ing well pleases, and thank him for letting me use it.
People being the way the are, we may soon see a similar venomous split between the GPL2 and GPL3 supports — if so, you heard it here first. If not, move along, you never noticed this post. Really. Nothing to see here.
All that said, many fine things have come out of BSD. SSH, for one. And it never hurts to have a competitor.
In the little I've studied the matter, I've come to believe that the difference is one of philosophy, and it's mostly centered around the licenses. As tumb said, the BSD license allows anyone to take your work, mug it, cut it up into little tiny bits, add enhancements, and sell the enhancements for profit, giving the original author nothing. The GPL, on the other hand, requires that anyone who does all that has to furnish all of the source code, including the profit-making part, on request, to whoever asks for it. BSD people see the GPL as a restriction on their freedom. I see it as giving the author the right to distribute his code any way he $&#*ing well pleases, and thank him for letting me use it.
People being the way the are, we may soon see a similar venomous split between the GPL2 and GPL3 supports — if so, you heard it here first. If not, move along, you never noticed this post. Really. Nothing to see here.
All that said, many fine things have come out of BSD. SSH, for one. And it never hurts to have a competitor.
Comment from:
Jeffery Williams [Visitor]
To the original premise of the article:
Much of the differences in attitude of the users comes from the original intention behind creating the BDS kernel and the Linux kernel.
I believe that BDS was written to use other Unix hardware without the license fees. BDS was not trying to replace a bad OS with a better OS. Rather, BDS is trying to continue the Unix computing experience without the monetary cost and intellectual oppression created by for profit Unix Vendors. The original user base more often than not, used Unix before BSD.
On the other hand, Linus was trying to create a DOS replacement using Unix systems as a model. Or more accurately, an OS that took full advantage of the i386 hardware. This DOS replacement has evolved into a Microsoft replacement. The user base of Linux reflects this also, many (like myself) started with DOS and found Linux to be better.
The differences in origins between the kernels leads to the difference in user base. The difference in user base then leads to a difference in philosophy. The BDS user is looking for an open, familiar system. The Linux user is a convert, trying to convert others (It needs to run like windows!) and still suffering from the Microsoft shakes (There can be only one!).
Much of the differences in attitude of the users comes from the original intention behind creating the BDS kernel and the Linux kernel.
I believe that BDS was written to use other Unix hardware without the license fees. BDS was not trying to replace a bad OS with a better OS. Rather, BDS is trying to continue the Unix computing experience without the monetary cost and intellectual oppression created by for profit Unix Vendors. The original user base more often than not, used Unix before BSD.
On the other hand, Linus was trying to create a DOS replacement using Unix systems as a model. Or more accurately, an OS that took full advantage of the i386 hardware. This DOS replacement has evolved into a Microsoft replacement. The user base of Linux reflects this also, many (like myself) started with DOS and found Linux to be better.
The differences in origins between the kernels leads to the difference in user base. The difference in user base then leads to a difference in philosophy. The BDS user is looking for an open, familiar system. The Linux user is a convert, trying to convert others (It needs to run like windows!) and still suffering from the Microsoft shakes (There can be only one!).
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@Jeffery Williams
Sigmund Freud called. He wants his slip back.
That cracked me up, calling the letters "BDS". (-: When I'm wrestling with a particularly knotty problem in BSD, I often mutter to myself, "Remember, you can't spell BDSM without B, S, and D!"
But yeah, your points are solid.
Sigmund Freud called. He wants his slip back.
That cracked me up, calling the letters "BDS". (-: When I'm wrestling with a particularly knotty problem in BSD, I often mutter to myself, "Remember, you can't spell BDSM without B, S, and D!"
But yeah, your points are solid.
Comment from:
Jeffery Williams [Visitor]
oops. Where I work there's a system referred to as BDS. I was thinking BSD and my stupid fingers typed the more often used BDS.
Comment from:
ERM [Visitor]
· http://www.ericsbinaryworld.com
When it comes to the lack of BSD lawsuits, I'm not sure, but I think it was settled pretty early on (perhaps in the suit you mention at the end) that as long as a certain bit of code was removed, BSD couldn't possibly be infringing on anyone's code because AT&T (Bell Labs) gave the source code away to schools to begin with. So as long as they were starting from that source and not the later, proprietary, source they were ok. So there really isn't anything for MS to sue over. Well, they could maybe sue over some recent improvements, but that's the software patent system. (Which I think needs to die quickly)
Another reason why the Linux community is always fighting is that there are tons of Linux distros to have loyalty to. Why? Because Linux is just a kernel (whoa, I think I was channeling rms there) and the userland stuff is based on whoever is creating your distro. In BSD, however, the kernel and userland tools are all developed together. Thus, there becomes little reason to favor one over the other.
On top of that, each of the BSDs seems to have clear goals. I'm not one of those people who hates choice in Linux. However, there are at least 3-5 Linux distros recommended to new users. Then there are another 3 or so hard ones. Then there are some for servers, etc With BSD, there's FreeBSD for general purpose, netBSD for obscure hardware, and OpenBSD for security. So pick whichever of the three you need and you're good to go.
Other notes - I think PC-BSD is definitely the Ubuntu of BSD in the sense that it is so for new people that the technology is disruptively different. Instead of just having a wrapper around FreeBSD Ports or Packages, they have their own binary format which does things in its own peculiar way. Personally, although I see how it is MUCH easier for the n00b to install something, I think the approach taken is very much against the Unix spirit. From the way I understand it, each program is self-contained to allow for easy removal without having to worry about dependencies. While that's nice in the sense that I hate in Windows when I want to uninstall a program and it tells that that "this file may be used by other programs and cause them to break" - I no longer want to delete that file. This is avoided in PC-BSD. However, it means that for programs which share libraries you have multiple copies of the libraries lying around. That seems so horribly inefficient that it makes the engineer in me cringe. I have to do some research, but I think Desktop BSD is a much more faithful to the Unix Spirit, user-friendly version of FreeBSD.
Another reason why the Linux community is always fighting is that there are tons of Linux distros to have loyalty to. Why? Because Linux is just a kernel (whoa, I think I was channeling rms there) and the userland stuff is based on whoever is creating your distro. In BSD, however, the kernel and userland tools are all developed together. Thus, there becomes little reason to favor one over the other.
On top of that, each of the BSDs seems to have clear goals. I'm not one of those people who hates choice in Linux. However, there are at least 3-5 Linux distros recommended to new users. Then there are another 3 or so hard ones. Then there are some for servers, etc With BSD, there's FreeBSD for general purpose, netBSD for obscure hardware, and OpenBSD for security. So pick whichever of the three you need and you're good to go.
Other notes - I think PC-BSD is definitely the Ubuntu of BSD in the sense that it is so for new people that the technology is disruptively different. Instead of just having a wrapper around FreeBSD Ports or Packages, they have their own binary format which does things in its own peculiar way. Personally, although I see how it is MUCH easier for the n00b to install something, I think the approach taken is very much against the Unix spirit. From the way I understand it, each program is self-contained to allow for easy removal without having to worry about dependencies. While that's nice in the sense that I hate in Windows when I want to uninstall a program and it tells that that "this file may be used by other programs and cause them to break" - I no longer want to delete that file. This is avoided in PC-BSD. However, it means that for programs which share libraries you have multiple copies of the libraries lying around. That seems so horribly inefficient that it makes the engineer in me cringe. I have to do some research, but I think Desktop BSD is a much more faithful to the Unix Spirit, user-friendly version of FreeBSD.
Comment from:
Penguin Pete [Member]
· http://www.penguinpetes.com/
@ERM
I agree that re-building BSD as a Fischer-Price toy so the kids can run it without hurting themselves goes against the Unix spirit, and the computing spirit, I might add. But careful how you say that. I still have scars from the whipping the mob gave me when I said the same thing about Ubuntu.
Yes, user-friendly is a logical wormhole. No matter how simple you design something, there are people who are computer-oriented and there are people who are not. Back when computers were nothing but black screens with green text and commands in Klingon and reel-to-reel tape, I saw the same people using them while complaining about them that I do today. If we made a computer with no interface at all that read your mind and was omnipotent, people would still complain that they were too complicated.
Complaining that computers are too hard is simply part of human DNA, and will remain for another century at least until people learn to accept them. It's been this way with inventions since fire and the wheel.
I agree that re-building BSD as a Fischer-Price toy so the kids can run it without hurting themselves goes against the Unix spirit, and the computing spirit, I might add. But careful how you say that. I still have scars from the whipping the mob gave me when I said the same thing about Ubuntu.
Yes, user-friendly is a logical wormhole. No matter how simple you design something, there are people who are computer-oriented and there are people who are not. Back when computers were nothing but black screens with green text and commands in Klingon and reel-to-reel tape, I saw the same people using them while complaining about them that I do today. If we made a computer with no interface at all that read your mind and was omnipotent, people would still complain that they were too complicated.
Complaining that computers are too hard is simply part of human DNA, and will remain for another century at least until people learn to accept them. It's been this way with inventions since fire and the wheel.
Comment from:
ERM [Visitor]
· http://www.ericsbinaryworld.com
speaking of your beating....Gutsy Gibbon is out today!
Oh, and I checked and Desktop BSD is the more faithful one. However, it also appears to be the one with the slower pace.
Oh, and I checked and Desktop BSD is the more faithful one. However, it also appears to be the one with the slower pace.
Comment from:
dalecosp [Visitor]
If memory serves, ixSystems (hardware builder in California) has "picked up" the PC-BSD "ball" and is running with it, while DesktopBSD remains an independent project. Both "distros", if you will, are aimed at desktop users in particular and utilize a FreeBSD codebase and the KDE.
To PenguinPete: thanks for the article, which I found humorous along with the taint of truth. :-D
Maybe it is quiet over here.
And, I think that at least some of the perceived "animosity" is simply friendly rivalry. Some of it is also likely simply annoyance at the occasional troll, or the newb with less than average skills and an "I don't have to RTFM when I can just bother you guys on {mail/IRC}" attitude.
The community *is* fairly quiet and neighborly, but the neighborhood watch occasionally kills stray dogs to keep it that way, too. ;-)
To PenguinPete: thanks for the article, which I found humorous along with the taint of truth. :-D
Maybe it is quiet over here.
And, I think that at least some of the perceived "animosity" is simply friendly rivalry. Some of it is also likely simply annoyance at the occasional troll, or the newb with less than average skills and an "I don't have to RTFM when I can just bother you guys on {mail/IRC}" attitude.
The community *is* fairly quiet and neighborly, but the neighborhood watch occasionally kills stray dogs to keep it that way, too. ;-)
Comment from:
ali [Visitor]
· http://pcbsd.org
just try pcbsd and good luck go to pcbsd.org , and read more about pbi ports and pakages on pcbcd , it is freee
Comment from:
holy-terrorist [Visitor]
· http://kouinette.antiville.fr
*=* héhéy *=* salut c'est moi
le celebre hacker
le celebre hacker
Comment from:
Steve Laurie [Visitor]
There's a saying I've always been fond of -
"BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for people who hate Windows."
I find that so true. Linux is like a bunch of decamped Windows uses. I'm sick of hearing Linux people bitch about Microsoft. Most Linux people I've met aren't using it because they like UNIX. It's more because they're escaping from Windows. Some have even admitted, they don't want to make Bill any richer. They're not using Windows because they're jealous of Bill and all his money.
My first experience with UNIX was OpenBSD and I used it on my servers and as my desktop OS on my PC and my laptop for many years. I later switched to FreeBSD mainly for compatibility reasons.
These days I mostly use Solaris but BSD still has a very fond place in my heart and I do still have an OpenBSD machine setup up stairs I use as a 'firewall' using PF.
I love the way Linux users try to associate themselves with BSD/UNIX users but the many in the BSD community don't want a bar of the Linux users for the reasons I mentioned above.
That's why you see pictures like the one where Beastie's skewering Tux with his fork and my favourite, the one where Tux is being tied down by a lot of Beasties.
I've used Linux but it's too mainstream and well supported for my liking. Also, I don't like the fact that most distros cater for the brain dead ex Windows zombies who are only looking for something as 'point and click' easy and brain dead as the OS they're trying to escape from.
Ah, that feels better
administrator@foo-unix.org
"BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for people who hate Windows."
I find that so true. Linux is like a bunch of decamped Windows uses. I'm sick of hearing Linux people bitch about Microsoft. Most Linux people I've met aren't using it because they like UNIX. It's more because they're escaping from Windows. Some have even admitted, they don't want to make Bill any richer. They're not using Windows because they're jealous of Bill and all his money.
My first experience with UNIX was OpenBSD and I used it on my servers and as my desktop OS on my PC and my laptop for many years. I later switched to FreeBSD mainly for compatibility reasons.
These days I mostly use Solaris but BSD still has a very fond place in my heart and I do still have an OpenBSD machine setup up stairs I use as a 'firewall' using PF.
I love the way Linux users try to associate themselves with BSD/UNIX users but the many in the BSD community don't want a bar of the Linux users for the reasons I mentioned above.
That's why you see pictures like the one where Beastie's skewering Tux with his fork and my favourite, the one where Tux is being tied down by a lot of Beasties.
I've used Linux but it's too mainstream and well supported for my liking. Also, I don't like the fact that most distros cater for the brain dead ex Windows zombies who are only looking for something as 'point and click' easy and brain dead as the OS they're trying to escape from.
Ah, that feels better
administrator@foo-unix.org
Comment from:
Mike Lenovax [Visitor]
quite a few FreeBSD developers are Apple employees.
Is there a BSD that has a graphical install? I'm new at this open source idea, and am trying different distributions, and was thinking of FreeBSD, since I've no real notions of how it works compared to Linux- but the thought of the text mode sets my nerves on end. I guess I need a graphical installer. Ive a testing box set up that I just put Fedora on it, wiping out the Windows partitions.
So far I've tried Ubuntu(less hassle but I don't prefer it, surely there is something better though it does have two good features I can name off the top of my head: networkmanager and downloading apps with minimum hassle the other)OpenSUSE and Fedora 7. I can't figure out how to use repositories for Fedora, wanting to put VLC on it. FreeBSD has everything tied together? If I've read it correctly that seems promising.
Might you know how I could proceed from here?
Travis