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

301–310 of 371 posts

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#301

Post by microtonal »

nixos wrote: post #293
darklajid wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you consider the advantage of FreeBSD ports/packages? Why would that be taken away by pkg? pkg provides a way to manage (binary) packages. There are other tools (like poudriere, last time I dabbled in the FreeBSD world) to manage/create binary packages. You could run FreeBSD on your tiny VPS, but build packages with all the custom ports options you could want in a jail on your local machine.

The advantage of ports is that they are compiled for your machine. The minute you get precompiled packages, you might as well be on Debian

Well, the nice thing is that you can mix and match. Don't care about the configuration of a package, use pkg. Want to use a set op custom compilation options? Use ports with 'make config'.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#302

Post by pmoriarty »

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.'

I hope you complain to Apple for using as a name and symbol the fruit that figured so prominently in the temptation and fall of Man.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#303

Post by blihp »

m_mueller wrote: post #242
blihp wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. The GPL, and resulting GPL'd software, does not exist for the benefit of commercial software vendors. While some business models are viable under it, that's a side-effect rather than an objective of it.

i.e. it's condemned to be a hobby for almost everyone involved, besides some key players who can live off of donations or those who sell services based on mostly other people's software.

And to many it's fine if it is. The GPL wasn't created to benefit the software industry, it was a reaction to it. That's also part of the reason that some commercial interests (most famously Apple) have been moving in the direction of MIT/BSD-style licenses. It's OK to align your efforts with licenses that match your requirements. The GPL is most aligned with the interests of users, not commercial developers. MIT/BSD is the reverse.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#304

Post by dang »

behnamoh wrote: post #170

Something I don't understand about FreeBSD is why they use the evil daemon for the logo? Whatever story behind it, I just think there are many other alternatives they could use as the logo.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12034979 and marked it off-topic.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#305

Post by dang »

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.

You can't conduct religious flamewars here.

Also, please don't create many obscure throwaway accounts on HN. This forum is a community. Anonymity is fine, but users should have some consistent identity that other users can relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community at all, and that would be an entirely different forum.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#306

Post by digi_owl »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #294
digi_owl wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The base problem there is drivers. Specifically that we have something like 3 suppliers of desktop GPUs. One refuse outright to supply information that allows a proper open driver to be developed. Another have just started providing this information in recent years, and there is still delays between the latest hardware hitting the market and the proper information reaching relevant hands. The third only recently star…

I personally would accept a huge hit in performance for a fully libre system (software and hardware) and would be willing to pay more than the average desktop/laptop price for it. I know I'm not alone but I wonder if the market is big enough for a company to start producing hardware products on that core principle.

Dunno. But i could have sworn i had read about a libre GPU design out there.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#307

Post by jdefr89 »

This is sort of explains why I have chosen OS X. Its a UNIX operating system that makes for a great modern desktop machine. I don't need to worry about poor and or glitchy hardware support. Its 2016, I don't have the time to play around with finding WiFi drivers or graphics drivers that can hardly support 3D-acceleration. Everything has always worked out of the box. Having had two MacBook Pros, I haven't had one hardware or software issue to date. They (OS X/Apple) have the advantage of being unified. People aren't constantly arguing over stupid shit as they seem to with Linux. FreeBSD's development on the other hand is just too slow for my desktop use. Despite what the article says, I have found that there is usually a support gap somewhere after an install; with drivers or whatever else. This isn't to say I dislike Linux, I do love Linux. I just wish they would get their shit together on a few issues. As for FreeBSD, it still has a strong spot for secure, stable servers. I suppose it's all a matter of preference. At the end of the day however I will always choose a UNIX system for my day to day use.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#308

Post by belorn »

Decade wrote: post #286
belorn wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do a windows reinstallation about once every second year, and I routinely get problems. Network drivers are almost always missing. Looking at the device manager, about 5-10 different devices fails to auto-install, all part of the motherboards. The default graphic drivers tend to "start", but is limited in refresh rate and resolution, and moving around windows shows a noticeable stutter until I install some official…

> I do a windows reinstallation about once every second year, and I routinely get problems. Network drivers are almost always missing. Looking at the device manager, about 5-10 different devices fails to auto-install, all part of the motherboards. What are you reinstalling, Windows XP every time? Newer versions of Windows are getting better at finding and installing sane drivers for the hardware. It’s still not perfe…

Windows 7, desktop machine, and windows update don't really work without a functioning network connection.

But if you don't believe me, and choose to believe those reporting issues with Linux, just do a google search on windows install and network issues. There is plenty of people reporting the same issue. to cite windows own support page:

"If Windows can’t find a new driver for your network adapter, visit the PC manufacturer’s website and download the latest network adapter driver from there. If your PC can't connect to the Internet, you'll need to download a driver on a different PC and save it to a USB flash drive so you can install the driver on your PC"

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#309

Post by jdefr89 »

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…

Why not try Apple? Mac OS X is an awesome UNIX that makes for great desktop use. Of course there are all the hipsters and idiots that use it, but put that aside and give it a solid try.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#310

Post by jdefr89 »

digi_owl wrote: post #288
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 base problem there is drivers. Specifically that we have something like 3 suppliers of desktop GPUs. One refuse outright to supply information that allows a proper open driver to be developed. Another have just started providing this information in recent years, and there is still delays between the latest hardware hitting the market and the proper information reaching relevant hands. The third only recently star…

Perhaps that is the core complaint. But at the end of the day support for those cards is what we need for our everyday computing. I don't think anyone is trying to undermine the work that Linux/BSD communities are putting forth in attempt to supply end users with software support for uncooperative hardware vendors. But again, they don't have control over that situation. So, in the mean time it shouldn't come as a surprise people are looking elsewhere to satisfy their computing requirements.
Post reply on HN