Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BSD vs. Linux (2005)

over-yonder.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 371 posts

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#211

Post by erlehmann_ »

m_mueller wrote: post #109
blihp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I can appreciate that point of view (i.e. as a vendor), the definition does depend on whose POV you are looking at it from. From an end-user (individual or business) POV, the GPL is absolutely 'freely redistributable' what you're talking about is your inability to limit that ability. That's the GPL doing its job.

> That's the GPL doing its job. It also makes it really hard to earn a living with actual software (not services) that depends on GPL.

All of the software I have written for money is free software. In some fields it is hard to not do that: Wordpress plugins, for example, are GPL licensed by default. Can you elaborate what problems you have run into?

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#212

Post by Filligree »

rayiner wrote: post #99
brulard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard the opposite. I've switched to OsX 4 years ago after being completely unhappy and irritated with Windows for over 12 years. Now after months of using Ubuntu (unity, xfce) and Mint (Cinnamon) I'm convinced that OsX is best for average (and power) desktop user by a huge margin. Although I would be much more happy with something Open Source.

I used Linux on the desktop from 2001-2007 or so. Switched to OS X until then. It's no contest: OS X is smoother, more consistent, and lower maintenance. Linux desktops seem to have peaked with GNOME 2.x. I'm not even sure what's going on with Unity.

Then I'd encourage you to try KDE. 4, not 5; 5 is still being developed.

I don't know what's going on with the Gnome guys, but KDE is flat-out the best desktop manager I've used, and I'm including Windows and OS X in the comparison. It's not without glitches, but the glitches are mostly of the "Google can't be bothered to make Chrome cooperate, and no-one has updated Emacs' DM support in the last ten years" sort.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#213

Post by Filligree »

terminalcommand wrote: post #198
thegeomaster wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use KDE and can confirm, unfortunately, that (at least on my setup) I have encountered many bugs pertaining to graphics. I also often get PulseAudio issues like the sound skipping when the system is under heavier-than-usual momentary load. I can't run Chrome developer tools without it crashing inside the driver every few minutes. Mounting an NTFS partition works on second try every time. I've used GNOME previously,…

I stuck with linux for many years for the very same reason. The solution that worked for me was getting an SSD. Now, I always have a debian VM working in seamless mode. Ctrl+alt+t opens a terminal window, all linux dev tools work without a flow. With an SSD there is absolutely no lag. Virtual desktops in Win10 and snapping with win+arrow keys, eliminate the need for a linux DE. Plus you can use Adobe products, Visual…

There is a VM that supports seamless mode for Linux?

Tell me more. Which one?

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#214

Post by skywhopper »

"A tour of BSD for Linux people" sounds like a genuinely interesting read, but the aggressively defensive tone starting in the second paragraph and continuing throughout the introduction turned me off of reading past the first page. I'm definitely interested in how BSD differs from Linux, but I'm not interested in being lectured at. (So, please tell me if it tones down after the first page.)

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#216

Post by majewsky »

soneil wrote: post #149
tempodox wrote: post #135

Disclaimer: I know this is a side issue. However, I'm really wondering what it is that makes people think using such a “creative” color scheme for publishing their texts would do any good. If it weren't for Safari's Reader view, I would be physically unable to decipher this text. Which would really be a shame, because this text deserves to be read. I guess, I'm still hoping that one of these days, I will reach one of…

It should be a side issue, but it's why I didn't read past the first page. It was physically uncomfortable to do so.

I just noticed there is actually a color theme selector right below the sidebar. The Light and Dark themes are both fairly readable. The author should just throw away the "Normal" theme.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#217

Post by talideon »

cm3 wrote: post #150
nixos wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too much. I've got a 700-800 MB system. It's unfortunate, as I'd love to have a versioned FS

HAMMER1 on DragonflyBSD runs well with little memory, including running dedup. It also has the binary pkg system just like FreeBSD. Also, the DRM drivers are up to date and support current Intel GPUs.

> It also has the binary pkg system just like FreeBSD.

Not just like, but the very same one. DPorts is FreeBSD ports with a few patches, and pkg in DragonflyBSD is pkg from FreeBSD.

> Also, the DRM drivers are up to date and support current Intel GPUs.

I believe FreeBSD is integrating that work itself. Intel GPU support on Dragonfly is pretty great.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#218

Post by tychuz »

idobai wrote: post #141
microtonal wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a start, X11's security model. Every X11 application can read all keystrokes, mouse events, do screengrabs of other window's contents, etc. In other words, your browser can snoop on what passwords you type into an X terminal if it wanted to or is compromised.

Windows10 is already recording every keystroke/data of yours - what's the difference here? Also, Canonical's snappy packages can kinda solve this problem.

This great argument again...

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#219

Post by digi_owl »

_wdzx wrote: post #145
eropple wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest reading (and comprehending) this excellent post for a review as to some of the tire-fire issues of X: http://blog.mecheye.net/2012/06/the-linux-graphics-stack/ DRI2 is an improvement over DRI, of course (which was already about five to eight years behind SOTA for GPUs when it came out ), but it's still a rickety, insecure mess--for one, any application can fire messages at any window in the X environm…

For summary - X is just as insecure as windows/macos - we know it: wayland, mir and snappy is coming. For your disclosure - don't be too lofty with me - I'm trying to understand your problems because I've a very different experience.

I have the suspicion that by the time Wayland is done, it is as much a mess as X is right now. Meaning that we would be better of just finding a way to treat every program as a root window (effectively killing the information leakage that exist right now).

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#220

Post by roblabla »

vetinari wrote: post #183
roblabla wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a security problem really. That's just a side issue. The problem is, today, if I want to watch a movie, play a game, do anything that requires using some slightly advanced GPU stuff, I'll get tearing, artifacts, or downright crashes. This is mostly because X11 sucks. (It's also partly because the proprietary nvidia drivers sucks). Nowadays I reboot on windows to watch netflix or play games (even linux-compat…

I've been using a Linux machine (Ubuntu+X11+nvidia+Kodi) as my HTPC for years. What's so sucky about it that I didn't notice during that time? No tearing, no artifacts, no crashes.

If you're using the nouveau drivers, everything's fine, but you don't get hardware acceleration. That means no games, but mostly tearing-free rendering, and no artifacts. The nvidia proprietary drivers is probably what's causing problems.
Post reply on HN