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

261–270 of 371 posts

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#261

Post by zeveb »

AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #164
idobai wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "outrage" I've meant canonical has developed it because they didn't like gnome shell(they like the innovation-thing). > For productivity, Unity beats any Gnome 3 setup I've tried so far. Unity has problems with multiple monitors, consumes more RAM and CPU and is also hard to customize. > And we're still not talking about the maintenance/security nightmare that is the Gnome 3 plugin system. But we should talk about…

> By "outrage" I've meant canonical has developed it because they didn't like gnome shell(they like the innovation-thing). After watching the "we're the only ones who know best, so shut up"-antics of the Gnome developers, I can understand that canonical got cold feet. > Unity has problems with multiple monitors, consumes more RAM and CPU and is also hard to customize. In my experience, setting up multiple monitors wa…

> After watching the "we're the only ones who know best, so shut up"-antics of the Gnome developers, I can understand that canonical got cold feet.

If only we could exile the GNOME devs, Canonical & the systemd devs to a desert island, the state of the Linux desktop would be … well, probably not as good but at least it'd be a much more collegial community.

To get back to the original topic: the attitudes of the GNOME devs, Canonical & the systemd devs reminds me of that of the OpenBSD devs, with the exception that the OpenBSD guys are generally right, just socially inept in how they convey their message.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#262

Post by zeveb »

nixos wrote: post #12

I know Linux (Debian) quite well and would like an excuse to try learning FreeBSD, but I just can't find any serious use-cases where FreeBSD would be of any advantage. I run a small site on a VPS, so: 1. I don't have GBs of free memory for ZFS 2. I don't have GB of RAM, CPU and HD space to build everything from ports, and most importantly, no need. Except for an Application Firewall for nginx, what does ports have ov…

> I just can't find any serious use-cases where FreeBSD would be of any advantage.

Ditto. I definitely like the idea of FreeBSD (and, even more, OpenBSD), but neither really seems worth the pain. The fact that I can't just rely on third-party software working means that I can't use either for my personal desktop (I like to play proprietary games) or even for servers (without extensive testing ahead of time, anyway).

As for the license, I prefer the GPL over the BSDL. I don't see why third parties should be permitted to forbid their users from enjoying the same rights they themselves received. Nuts to that.

And, honestly, as much as BSDs are a nicely-integrated software suite, they are an old nicely-integrated software suite. As much as the GNU userland is … weird & inconsistent, it's also really powerful. I like having an ls which has added options since 1986.

I'd love to love the BSDs, but … I don't.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#263

Post by cp9 »

hiram112 wrote: post #108
_wdzx wrote: post #86

> I like FreeBSD, and I use it as a server OS and on a NAS box but you only need look at https://wiki.freebsd.org/Graphics to understand that if the "Linux Desktop" is a joke compared to MacOS and Windows then the "FreeBSD Desktop" is even more so. I've never heard anything good about the "MacOS desktop" and I'm pretty sure that the "windows desktop" is far behind the "linux desktop"(plugins, performance, menus etc.)…

Linux on the desktop is still full of issues that were solved by Windows and Mac a decade ago. Fonts still look like crap (Ubuntu is an exception), and even with patches there are still problems with Java, old GTK libs, etc. I could care less about games, MS Office, a d a lot of other things that are deal breakers for some, but I have tried Linux on the desktop and it is still lacking.

I'm right there with you, I've never had good luck with fonts on Linux. They always look fuzzy, instead of crisp and sharp like on OSX

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#264

Post by snuxoll »

voltagex_ wrote: post #188
snuxoll wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DAS arrays are extremely easy to understand, they're just "expanders" - SAS has special support built in for this, in servers you typically have the front drive bays connected to a single SAS port on the board instead of individual cables running to each drive, a DAS is the same thing just as an external enclosure with separate power. You connect it to a basic SAS HBA with an external SAS port (SFF-8088), like the LS…

Doesn't look like I can use an expander with my chassis. http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/atom/x10/a1sr... . Don't know why I was so set on this in the end. Had to import it, and then it wasn't really supported by FreeNAS.

You've got a PCIe 8X slot on there, plenty for a SAS HBA card if it isn't taken already. That's all you need to drive the DAS.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#265

Post by mozumder »

_wdzx wrote: post #104
redwall_hp wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChuckMcM's criticisms seem to be of the X Window System, not of any particular desktop environment. Architecturally, it really doesn't fit with modern systems and has a lot of legacy baggage. It doesn't matter what DE you like, X still powers it, and it's the issue. Wayland is on the way, which may bring Linux graphics into the 21st century, but I haven't been following that very closely. Apple's way more on the ball…

Enlighten me - what's the problem with the linux desktops?

They're Linux.

How are you supposed to run Adobe inDesign on a Linux desktop?

Or any other useful application, really.

Linux should just kill off its desktop. Mac OS X won the Unix desktop wars, and has the expected use models of a desktop, with a proper modern GUI API as well, instead of the ancient X hacks.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#266

Post by 2trill2spill »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #236
woodman wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. I don't have GBs of free memory for ZFS Others have already addressed the memory hog myth, so I'll just say that you aren't required to run ZFS - UFS still works just fine. I just sshed into my freebsd AWS instance (UFS) to see 116d uptime with 130MB ram in use and the remaining 110MB being free. I've made no effort to optimize resource usage on the instance, but if I wanted to I could pretty easily cut that by…

Which FreeBSD desktop do you use? I'm collecting recommendations before I try using one.

Try Lumina It's simple and light on resources.

https://lumina-desktop.org/

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#267

Post by takeda »

siddhant wrote: post #56
vivin wrote: post #5

I was a long-time FreeBSD user. Started using it in college and continued for a long time. I started using Linux because I had bought myself a new laptop and BSD didn't recognize the wifi card. I continued using FreeBSD at home for a few more years on my webserver before ultimately moving to dreamhost (I just didn't have the time to keep maintaining my own server). I like using Linux, but I still miss the predictabil…

> you know where things are, and where they are supposed to be Does this not depend on the distro you're using?

It's more than what you see in Linux. For example in Linux you have system packages, packages that are in distro repo, and 3rd party repo all sorting configuration and startup scripts in /etc.

In FreeBSD anything you find in /etc is part of the system, applications that you install are fully contained in /usr/local including etc and rc.d (init.d). /usr/local is also completely empty when you first install the system.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#268

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

AlexeyBrin wrote: post #247
wtbob wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unlike backwards religious fundamentalists, the cute little devil hasn't harmed a single person. Even if one doesn't believe in the Devil, surely it seems in poor taste to use as a mascot a mythological creature who is reputed to be the source of every single evil, cruel, horrible thing in all of history. It's almost as bad as naming a piece of encryption software 'felony.'

> poor taste to use as a mascot a mythological creature who is reputed to be the source of every single evil, cruel, horrible thing in all of history Well ... what about Pan and Dionysus ? What about all other cultures in which there is no Devil representation that has a tail and horns ? History is long and the world is more diverse than you seem to realize.

What's evil about Pan and Dionysus?

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#269

Post by nickpsecurity »

2trill2spill wrote: post #266
nickpsecurity wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which FreeBSD desktop do you use? I'm collecting recommendations before I try using one.

Try Lumina It's simple and light on resources. https://lumina-desktop.org/

I was about to ask about it's robustness and security. Then, the website gave me 404 errors on features, news, and other sections on the website. Hmm. I'll still put it on the list, though, for non-critical use.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#270

Post by rleigh »

knorker wrote: post #123
dkarapetyan wrote: post #15

I tried freebsd. Gone back to ubuntu. In this day and age not having proper dependency resolution for packages is not acceptable. I've more than once had some tool based on ports just go into an infinite cycle when asked to upgrade some packages. The philosophy laid out in this article seems more like rationalization of historical accidents more than anything else. Linux file system layout is just as predictable as a…

> In this day and age not having proper dependency resolution for packages is not acceptable. It still doesn't? Haha! I remember ranting about this 10 years ago, with a friend who went to a conference in France… that was dedicated to package management in BSDs. I asked him how I "just upgrade all the packages" (apt-get upgrade). I'd found two-three ways, but couldn't get them to work. He said that yeah there are thre…

pkg update; pkg upgrade

No different from apt on a Debian system. It's come on leaps and bounds since the initial 10.0 release.

Post reply on HN