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

321–330 of 371 posts

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#321

Post by xkarga00 »

na85 wrote: post #201
xkarga00 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I am not sure how you managed to infer my lack of appreciation for people's freedom of choice merely from a title of a book. You may understand what I am trying to convey, if you ever read the book.

How about just coming out and saying it, instead of leaving smug hints about some niche book? You're not adding anything to the discussion.

See, from my point of view enough was added to the discussion with just a comment about a "niche book". Rest of the comments on it are mere reactions of ego:)

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#322

Post by 746F7475 »

krylon wrote: post #206
746F7475 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I hear "BSD" I always think: "if you want to use BSD you have to build a machine for it". This isn't really based on any real world experience, but whenever BSD comes up as a topic only thing that sticks with me is: "it only likes very specific hardware" which makes me very hesitant to ever consider trying it. I've had so many hardware incompatibility problems with Ubuntu, which is suppose to support almost…

It's strange, I have heard lots of people complain who wanted to give Linux a try (over Windows) and ran into hardware issues. On the other hand, over the last ~15 years, I have almost never checked if a piece of hardware is supported by Linux (or BSD) before buying it, and I have only run into problems twice, really. One was an Aureal Vortex sound card for which a driver was maintained outside the Linux kernel tree,…

GPUs have been the pain of my Linux existence, everything else is generic enough to work, but last time I tried Ubuntu the default settings manager crashed at the mere sight of my GPU and when I installed a differed WM either couldn't find the resolutions I wanted to run or they didn't stick around after booting. After messing around with some "xorg-edgers" drivers I ended up with machine which claimed it had no displays anywhere and I just gave up and installed Windows.

It always seems to be one thing or another. Either it's some program/service I use daily that doesn't work (or doesn't quite work as well as I know it can) or it's some strange issue with sound or most likely GPU

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#323

Post by AlexeyBrin »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #268
AlexeyBrin wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Nothing, this was my point. The OP just implied that the small devil image of FreeBSD represents evil in the entire history of humanity which is false.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#324

Post by ChuckMcM »

jdefr89 wrote: post #309
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.

If Apple were to release MacOS for non-Apple hardware I would upgrade to that in a heartbeat. If the Ubuntu 'shell' for the Windows kernel works out I might switch to that as well.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#325

Post by ChuckMcM »

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…

I had hoped that the FreeBSD folks would put together a locally rendered (composited?) architecture that had a test suite and clear cut API such that vendors could create their own proprietary driver and load it there.

I get that it is impossible for the free software and hardware community to design a GPU. I also get that people who do design them have no interest at all in leaving any money on the table by sharing so much of the design that their "secret sauce" gets stolen (or they get hit with patent abuses).

Because it is genetically impossible for the Linux community to tolerate, much less endorse or encourage any sort of proprietary advantage, I do not expect that Linux will ever be a functional desktop environment of the level and quality of a Mac or Windows environment. FreeBSD could be that environment but they have to design for it. So far it hasn't been a priority for them.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#326

Post by pimeys »

vertex-four wrote: post #147
pimeys wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As for the DE experience on other platforms, Windows has had a kinda-tiling WM that regular people do use in the form of AeroSnap, while macOS is now getting tabs-in-the-window-manager, and Exposé+Spaces that evolved into Mission Control has been a positively brilliant experience for years. > Meanwhile on Linux, the very fact that you have to massage it into something useful ever so slightly at every level is, to m…

Most people, otoh, enjoy playing games, watching videos, that sort of thing. Some people even do work that's dependent on the graphics card. Just because you use your computer for a very minimal amount of tasks doesn't mean everyone else does.

I do all of those things. My gaming PC is solely for games and netflix and it's connected to our television. I think it more as a gaming console than a computer. It has Windows 10 in it just for Witcher 3 and to remind me of never installing it to my laptop or workstations...

With my arch/xmonad laptop I can handle everything else, except that damn Witcher 3 :)

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#327

Post by khedoros »

nine_k wrote: post #313
jdefr89 wrote: post #307

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 hard…

Such a great illustration! * You can use great hardware, but the choice of it is rather limited. * You're OK with upstream making a lot of choices for you, though the upstream is considered good at making the right choices. * You don't mind running a lot of proprietary stuff (anything above the Darwin level). People who choose Linux (over OSX and even BSD) look at these bullet points differently, thus the divide.

Exactly.

* When I bought my laptop 5 years ago, Apple was a candidate. It lost out because I still wanted an optical drive (and was interested in Bluray specifically, at the time), I wanted a 1080p screen, an HDMI output, and at least 3 USB3 ports. Upgradeability is a plus; I've upgraded the RAM, hard drive, and wifi card since I bought my laptop, as my needs have changed.

* I like having choices (in terms of software and configuration), and they often don't match up with the best options for mainstream users.

* I've got a Windows partition, but it's not my first choice for general computing. I don't have any particular interest in Apple's technologies or services, so I feel like a lot of their ecosystem would be lost on me anyhow. I do generally find Apple's software to be well-designed and aesthetically pleasing. I'd be worried about fighting the software to get what I want done, though.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#328

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

AlexeyBrin wrote: post #323
GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's evil about Pan and Dionysus?

Nothing, this was my point. The OP just implied that the small devil image of FreeBSD represents evil in the entire history of humanity which is false.

You wrote in the context of the devil being

> the source of every single evil, cruel, horrible thing

and used Pan and Dionysus as a counter-example.

If you're saying 'well, Pan and Dionysus both have horns like the bsd mascot' I don't find that compelling either because the identifying characteristics don't line up (different types of horns, the tail, the pitchfork, and so on).

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#329

Post by caf »

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…

The containerisation approach on Linux isn't because of insularity or NIH - it's because the Linux kernel development process does not accept large, far-reaching "big bang" code drops. Instead, changes that have wide impact across the core kernel are expected to be made in a series of smaller incremental improvements, each of which is more limited in impact and more easily reviewed.

Re: BSD vs. Linux (2005)

#330

Post by suby »

cocotino wrote: post #195
fao_ wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this honestly comes down to driver support rather than the Xorg stack. I dual boot with Windows 8.1 (Which is the OS supported by my manufacturer) and Arch Linux, and Arch is consistently more stable and faster for viewing videos and playing games than W8.1. For example, I tried watching TNG from my external drive the other day (Using the latest VLC for both). On Linux this isn't a problem, the quality is goo…

VLC is just a shadow of what it used to be. On Windows I recommend you to try something else like MPC-HC

How is VLC a shadow of what it used to be? I'm not trying to be argumentative, genuinely curious.
Post reply on HN