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

271–280 of 371 posts

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#271

Post by throwaway7767 »

talideon wrote: post #200
ChuckMcM wrote: post #75

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. From my experience of "old" computers, workstations, and then "PCs as Workstations", Windows won the desktop because the UNIX camp could never check their egos at the door a…

> the "FreeBSD Desktop" is even more so. The funny thing is that there's a reason for that: up until recently, the focus of FreeBSD has been on being a server OS. There's a push recently on improving the graphics situation, but it's only relatively recent, and is mainly focussed on getting integrated graphics on more modern hardware working. There are also some efforts to expand the driver compatibility layer so that…

IIRC FreeBSD was making some decent progress on the workstation experience before Apple released OSX. Once that happened, a lot of the people working on that switched over and the efforts kind of died down for a while.

I haven't used FreeBSD on a desktop for years, but I've been told it's getting a lot better recently.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#272

Post by unethical_ban »

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…

FreeBSD has the "pkg" system now, which has binary distribution with dependency management.

Of all things, the lack of a distinction in Fedora/RHEL of "requires vs. recommends" is frustrating, coming from Ubuntu.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#273

Post by woodman »

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.

I don't use a DE, but I've used the tiling WM i3 for years:

https://i3wm.org

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#274

Post by kitsunesoba »

Filligree wrote: post #212
rayiner wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a long time Mac user I find KDE hard to enjoy. The UIs of KDE apps are almost universally overpacked, messy, or lopsided (one side of the window had its controls crammed while the other has awkward white space). It might sound like a silly gripe but it really bothers me. The design of apps from GTK+ desktop environments (GNOME, Cinnamon, Pantheon) generally feel much better, but they have their own problems.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#275

Post by PeCaN »

wtbob wrote: post #229
8183138921 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with beastie? Unlike backwards religious fundamentalists, the cute little devil hasn't harmed a single person.

> 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.'

As a practicing Christian¹, I can honestly say the BSD Daemon never bothered me. It's kind of clever. Also, I have it on good faith (heh) that the FreeBSD developers aren't satanists.

Expressions like “speed demon” don't bother me either. The general concept of a demon is somewhat different from a fallen angel; I don't have trouble with demons being painted in a neutral/jokingly positive light, unless the demon obviously refers to the devil or affiliates (in which case “woo the devil is awesome!” makes me moderately uncomfortable).

¹ Odds are I could even get labelled as a backwards religious fundamentalist.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#276

Post by PeCaN »

872382372 wrote: post #251
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.'

Both Christians and Muslims have been a huge source of actual (vs. childish imaginary) evil over the past 2000 years. Anyone who takes the devil seriously should stick to reading Harry Potter.

…Believe it or not, humans in general have been a huge source of actual evil throughout human history. You could probably reasonably argue that Christians and Muslims¹ have contributed enough good that in spite of their evil actions they've probably had a net positive effect on humanity.

Oh, and quite a lot of math and science dates back to Christian and Muslim scholars, so your last sentence is perhaps dismissive of the general intellect of religious folk. As someone rather appreciative of the work of Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Gregor Mendel, a variety of ancient Muslim scholars, and many more, I'm glad they didn't stick to reading fiction.

¹ Who I don't generally group with Christians (the religions, while superficially similar, are pretty different), but I don't have anything against them and I would not consider them “evil”, or at least not more evil than humanity at large.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#277

Post by AnonymousPlanet »

zeveb wrote: post #261
AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #164

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). 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…

> 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.

I wouldn't judge them that harshly, but the kerfuffles had the effect of splitting the Linux community into those who embrace progress and those who shun it. Sadly, most of the experienced went the latter way because the progressive path was full of cranks.

> 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.

Most of this, in my experience, comes from sticking to a very strong opinion that is heavily based on ideals. The further apart from the real and existing world these ideals are, the more caution should be taken when implementing them. Otherwise you will be placing a huge turd on someone's desk. During work hours. On a deadline.

I think this is the main problem with the attitude that the Gnome and systemd devs have. The Canonical devs took their ideals at least closer from a working model (OS X) and they were (I assume) motivated by pragmatism.

The OpenBSD devs base their ideals probably closer to their own experience. That makes it more likely to be right.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#278

Post by eatonphil »

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.

I am just a layuser, but I have had no issue running MATE and Gnome3 on my Lenovo Ideapad Y410p.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#279

Post by eropple »

criddell wrote: post #225
eropple wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run a Linux desktop for work (typing on it right now) as a dual-boot with my Windows setup. It is a "modern machine", at least if an i7-6700K and a 980Ti are modern, and I couldn't get X to start with Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. And yet it did with Ubuntu 14.04, which is bizarre. My time is valuable enough that I didn't debug it further than that--if I wanted to light my time on fire I'd just go set up a Hackintosh and have…

> if I wanted to light my time on fire I'd just go set up a Hackintosh and have a better desktop experience As I understand it, installing macOS on non-Apple hardware is a license violation. Your employer is okay with that?

I'm self-employed, so yes. I've got four grand of Apple gear in my office, and if they sold an xMac I'd buy one tomorrow. I don't consider it to be a moral question, and in practice Apple doesn't seem to really care.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#280

Post by AceJohnny2 » 

  When I say "Linux", I mean Red Hat. I mean Slackware. I mean Mandrake. I mean Debian. I mean SuSe. I mean Gentoo. I mean every one of the 2 kadzillion distributions out there, based around a Linux kernel with substantially similar userlands, mostly based on GNU tools, that are floating around the ether.
So... do you include Android? It's worth asking, because though it uses a Linux kernel, it's a heavily modified one (little chance of Binder ever being accepted into Mainline, or of Android abandoning it), and its userland is very different from anything you're used to from GNU.

Edit: I can't find a date, but from other stuff in it I'm guessing the article is from quite a few years ago, before Android was mainstream or even existed.

Post reply on HN